# United States v. Ryan Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8652402

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 23, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/8652402

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion
- stating standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6601 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN CRAIG BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00184-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Craig Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6601 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Craig Brown appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying Brown’s motion

for compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by

the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239; and (2)

denying his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motions. See United States

v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review for

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); Wicomico Nursing Home

v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 750 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review for Rule 59(e)

motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Brown,

No. 4:08-cr-00184-RBH-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 14, 2022; Mar. 23, 2022). 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/8652402. Public record. Not legal advice.