UNITED STATES v. BOSWELL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-07-15No. No. 21-6131

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of both the motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act and the motion for compassionate release, finding no reversible error in the sentence reduction decision and no abuse of discretion in the compassionate release decision.

Melvin Boswell, Jr. sought relief on two separate grounds. First, he moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, which allows certain defendants to petition for reconsideration of their sentences. Second, he separately moved for compassionate release under federal statute, which permits courts to reduce sentences in cases involving extraordinary and compelling reasons. The district court rejected both motions, and Boswell appealed both denials.

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

Key issues

Eligibility for sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018
Standard for denial of compassionate release motions
Appellate review of discretionary sentencing decisions

Procedural posture

Boswell appealed the district court's orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and his alternative motion for compassionate release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Melvin Boswell, Jr., appeals the district courts text order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error in the courts denial of relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Boswell, No. 6:15-cr-00620-BHH-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2021). Boswell also appeals the district courts order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boswells motion for compassionate release. Accordingly, we affirm. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.