United States v. Sylvester Jackson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6889 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6889 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SYLVESTER MONROE JACKSON, a/k/a Tiny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cr-00094-JPJ-1) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Monroe Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Patrick Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6889 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Sylvester Monroe Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his fifth 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release, as amended and supplemented. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that sentencing relief was not warranted. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, determinations district court must make before granting motion, and guideposts for assessing whether district court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Specifically, the court accurately recounted Jackson’s arguments in favor of a reduction, explained its rationale for rejecting those arguments, and alternatively denied relief based on the § 3553(a) factors it deemed the most significant, to wit: the serious nature of the underlying criminal conduct and Jackson’s extensive criminal history. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion to amend to allow newly discovered evidence and affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jackson, No. 7:15-cr-00094- JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2024). 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 2