United States of America v. Bobby James Brown

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY JAMES BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00100-ELH-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby James Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Nazmy, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bobby James Brown appeals the district court’s order partially granting his motion
for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Brown contends that the district
court erred in not granting a greater reduction in his sentence. We review the district
court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th
Cir.), 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. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted). After reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 --