UNITED STATES v. HOBSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-08No. No. 20-7385

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Hobson's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion.

Kimberly Russell Hobson sought compassionate release from her federal sentence under the applicable statutory provision. The district court rejected her motion, and Hobson appealed that denial to the circuit court. After reviewing the record, the appellate court found no error in the district court's exercise of discretion and upheld the lower court's decision without addressing the merits in detail, relying instead on the reasoning provided by the district judge.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Compassionate release eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
Standard of review for district court discretionary decisions on sentence modification
Whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted release

Procedural posture

Hobson appealed the district court's order denying her motion for compassionate release to the circuit court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Kimberly Russell Hobson appeals the district courts order denying her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district courts denial of Hobsons motion for compassionate release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hobson, No. 1:17-cr-00470-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2020). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. Although we previously placed this appeal in abeyance, for reasons appearing to the court, we may proceed with consideration of this appeal.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.