United States of America v. Dante Jamerus Bright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANTE JAMERUS BRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00078-FL-2)
Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025
Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dante Jamerus Bright, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dante Jamerus Bright appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of
compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court
has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has
conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). “To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude
that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary
and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
On appeal, Bright challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the § 3553(a) factors
do not support his release. We discern no abuse of discretion. The district court adequately
addressed Bright’s arguments that his weight, history of smoking, and underlying health
conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic and explained why it rejected his arguments. Moreover, the court
did not abuse its discretion in considering the § 3553(a) factors.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --