United States of America v. Reggie Colin Blount

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6342
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGGIE COLIN BLOUNT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00109-D-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. Tarlton, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reggie Colin Blount appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release. Blount argues that the district court erred in considering his plea
agreement and in failing to address one of his arguments.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
383 (2021). The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Blount’s plea
agreement. See United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2023). Although the
court did not address Blount’s argument concerning his age and reduced risk of recidivism,
a district court need not address every argument raised by a defendant in a compassionate
release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, “the
touchstone must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court that it
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 190
(cleaned up). The district court thoroughly analyzed the motion and explained why a
reduced sentence would not be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Thus, the
court did not abuse its discretion in failing to explicitly address this one argument.
Accordingly, 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 --