Opinion
23-6711
05-31-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY SEAN SCHEETZ, a/k/a G, a/k/a Germ, Defendant-Appellant.
Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 4, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:00-cr-00078-BO-1)
ON BRIEF:
Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Sean Scheetz appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release 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), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal, Scheetz argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion for compassionate release without considering the arguments he raised in support of his motion and that the court abused its discretion in applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to deny the motion. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scheetz's motion. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. United States v. Scheetz, No. 7:00-cr-00078-BO-1 (E.D. N.C. July 14, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.