UNITED STATES v. HARE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 21-6510

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Hare's compassionate release motion is affirmed.

Shane Elliott Hare sought compassionate release from his sentence under federal law, asking the district court to reduce his punishment based on extraordinary and compelling reasons. The district court rejected his request after analyzing the relevant sentencing factors and providing written justification for the denial. On appeal, Hare challenged this decision, but the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the lower court.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release
Adequacy of the district court's explanation for denying the motion
Application of sentencing factors to compassionate release requests

Procedural posture

Hare appealed the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Shane Elliott Hare appeals the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district courts order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied Hares motion after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district courts 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.