USCA4 Appeal: 21-7631 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7631
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD WILLIAM LINDSEY, a/k/a Bilal,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:14-cr-00073-FDW-3)
Submitted: June 16, 2022 Decided: July 25, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald William Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7631 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Reginald William Lindsey appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for
compassionate release upon reconsideration, 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. We affirm.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
383 (2021). Upon a defendant’s motion, a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment
if the defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies and “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Even if a
district court finds extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, it
retains the discretion to deny the motion after balancing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186
(4th Cir. 2021).
“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to
consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on
erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard,
891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the
district court’s consideration of evidence is subject to harmless error review under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, such that “[i]n order to find a district court’s error harmless,
we need only be able to say with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without
stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7631 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
swayed by the error.” United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court abused its discretion by
mistakenly concluding Lindsey did not suffer from any medical conditions. However, the
error was harmless, as the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and, in its
discretion, determined that release was not warranted based on those factors. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Lindsey, No. 3:14-cr-00073-FDW-3
(W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2021). 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