United States v. Dante Bright

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6959 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6959 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANTE JAMERUS BRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00078-FL-2) Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025 Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dante Jamerus Bright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6959 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Dante Jamerus Bright 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 § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an 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). “To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). On appeal, Bright challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the § 3553(a) factors do not support his release. We discern no abuse of discretion. The district court adequately addressed Bright’s arguments that his weight, history of smoking, and underlying health conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and explained why it rejected his arguments. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the § 3553(a) factors. AFFIRMED 2