United States v. Anthony Laporte

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY MICHAEL LAPORTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00008-RBS-LRL- 1) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Michael Laporte, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Anthony Michael Laporte appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine: (1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id. On appeal, Laporte challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and that the § 3553(a) factors did not support his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court addressed all of Laporte’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why each failed to meet the standard. Moreover, the court did not commit any legal error in weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they did not weigh in favor of Laporte’s release. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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 3