# United States v. Tremaine Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 10, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10758573

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 10, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10758573

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6845 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6845

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREMAINE ANTWAUN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00285-CCE-1)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremaine Antwaun Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6845 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine Antwaun Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his third 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. 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

Brown’s arguments in favor of a reduction and explained its rationale for rejecting those

arguments, and further opined that the § 3553(a) factors did not countenance granting relief

in this case.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Brown, No. 1:14-

cr-00285-CCE-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10758573. Public record. Not legal advice.