United States of America v. Benjamin McMiller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENJAMIN MCMILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00269-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin McMiller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin McMiller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying McMiller’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021)
(per curiam) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 191
(4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]n light of this case’s relative simplicity, where the district court was
aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive
reason for adhering to what was already a below-Guidelines sentence, its explanation for
denying [the] motion for compassionate release was adequate.” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McMiller, No. 3:17-cr-
00269-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023). Because it fails to comply with 4th Cir. R.
28(b), McMiller’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief is denied. 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 --