The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS WILLIAM BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00297-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis William Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Dennis William Brown appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
to reconsider the denial of his motion seeking compassionate release.
“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.” United States v.
Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and ellipsis
omitted). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 127. When considering a defendant’s motion for compassionate
release, a court must “set forth enough to satisfy [this] court that it has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” United States v.
Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
this court’s opinion in Brown did not require it to alter its finding that compassionate
release was unwarranted because Brown failed to show extraordinary and compelling
reasons for such relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.
Brown, No. 3:17-cr-00297-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2024).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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