United States of America v. James Christopher Crank

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7558
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES CHRISTOPHER CRANK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00103-RAJ-LRL-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Christopher Crank, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Marina Montoya, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Christopher Crank appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of
a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d
326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons
for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing
amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order, deny Crank’s motion for appointment of counsel, and
deny as unnecessary Crank’s motion requesting that we consider his informal brief. 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 --