UNITED STATES v. MCINTOSH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-07-02No. No. 21-6500

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of McIntosh's compassionate release motion, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that he failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling basis for relief and that sentencing factors weighed against release.

Michael Anthony McIntosh sought compassionate release from his federal sentence under the statute permitting sentence reduction upon a showing of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The district court rejected his motion, finding he had not demonstrated such circumstances and that the applicable sentencing factors did not support release. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and found none, concluding the lower court properly applied the legal standard.

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

Key issues

Whether McIntosh established extraordinary and compelling circumstances for compassionate release
Whether sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) supported sentence reduction
Standard of review for district court compassionate release decisions

Procedural posture

McIntosh appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Michael Anthony McIntosh appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district courts determination both that McIntosh failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling basis for relief and that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors militated against compassionate release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions). Accordingly, we deny McIntoshs motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district courts judgment. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.