United States of America v. Kevin Horsey, a/k/a What What

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6426
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN HORSEY, a/k/a What What,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00453-GLR-9)
Submitted: June 14, 2023 Decided: July 19, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Horsey, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Corwin McLane, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Horsey appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).∗ Upon review, we discern no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate release. See United States
v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Horsey, No. 1:16-cr-00453-GLR-9 (D.
Md. Mar. 21, 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
∗ Horsey also argues that the district court did not address the request for
appointment of counsel embedded within his motion. We find no reversible error. Because
Horsey ably presented his straightforward arguments for compassionate release without
the assistance of counsel, the interests of justice did not require counsel’s appointment. See
United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000) (observing that appointment of
counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings is discretionary)

-- 2 of 2 --