United States of America v. James Lee McClain

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES LEE MCCLAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00250-FL-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 20, 2021
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lee McClain, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Lee McClain appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 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. We have reviewed
the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
McClain’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating
standard of review), cert. denied, 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021); see
also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s
order denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational
and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial
to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
McClain, No. 5:18-cr-00250-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. July 9, 2021). 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 --