United States of America v. Larry Ray Ward, a/k/a Red

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6764
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY RAY WARD, a/k/a Red,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00286-D-1)
Submitted: February 17, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael
F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Neal I. Fowler, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Ray Ward appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After review of the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such release
was not warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those
factors against Ward’s health conditions, his age, a post-sentencing change in the law
affecting the career offender classification under the Sentencing Guidelines, Ward’s release
plan, his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts and conduct in prison, his exposure to
COVID-19 and risk of a severe outcome, and steps taken in the Bureau of Prisons to
address the disease. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)
(noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant motion, and
guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors). Ward’s appellate arguments challenging the district court’s denial
decision as insufficiently explained and substantively unreasonable and challenging the
district court’s weighing of the factors before it are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
the court’s order. United States v. Ward, No. 5:11-cr-00286-D-1 (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2022).
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 --