United States of America v. Laquan Eugene Johnson, a/k/a Turtle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAQUAN EUGENE JOHNSON, a/k/a Turtle,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:14-cr-00039-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: July 5, 2022
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laquan Eugene Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Laquan Eugene Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and denying
reconsideration. On appeal, Johnson asserts that the district court inadequately explained
its decision to deny compassionate release. We affirm.
We review a district court’s ruling on a compassionate-release motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or
irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of
discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”
United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Upon a defendant’s motion, a district court may reduce a prison term if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). “[D]istrict courts are empowered to consider any extraordinary and
compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981
F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). If a court finds extraordinary and compelling
reasons, “it must consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the extent that
they are applicable in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned
up).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In its order, the district court noted that it had previously denied a motion for
compassionate release raising the same arguments as those presented in the instant motion.
Incorporating its earlier order by reference, the court determined that its prior analysis
supported denying Johnson’s subsequent motion for compassionate release. Johnson did
not appeal the court’s denial of his first motion for compassionate release and we “will not
consider the merits of the initial denial, because that denial was not timely appealed.” N.C.
State Conf. of NAACP v. Berger, 999 F.3d 915, 925 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc), reversed on
other grounds by Berger v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, __ S. Ct. __, No. 21-248, 2022
WL 2251306 (U.S. June 23, 2022). Further, as the instant motion for compassionate
release raised the same claims, it was “straightforward,” and the court’s incorporation of
its prior analysis indicates that the court “was aware of the arguments, considered the
relevant sentencing factors, and had an ‘intuitive reason’” for denying compassionate
release. High, 997 F.3d at 191.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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

-- 3 of 3 --