The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-6681•United States of America v. Richard Henry Kayian, a/k/a Pops
24-6681Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 16, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6681
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD HENRY KAYIAN, a/k/a Pops,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00041-JPJ-1)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Henry Kayian, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Samuel Brett, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Henry Kayian appeals the district court’s order denying his most recent 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release. Upon review of the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kayian’s motions.
United States v. Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024) (providing standard
of review). Specifically, while short, the appealed-from order incorporated by reference
the court’s prior order—issued nearly three months earlier—in which the court thoroughly
considered Kayian’s health-based arguments and denied Kayian’s counseled motion for
compassionate release. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.
Kayian, No. 1:16-cr-00041-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. June 25, 2024).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.