USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant,
No. 22-6792
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00341-GLR-1; 1:20-cr-00424-GLR-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David Anthony Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 383 (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. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After
reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding they did not support
granting Robinson’s motions. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. 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