US v. Larry Hill, Jr., No. 20-6126 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY D. HILL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00028-BR-1) Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: June 16, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chief Judge Gregory dissented in part. Eric Joseph Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry D. Hill, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hill, No. 4:13-cr-00028-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 2020). We deny Hill’s motion to remand but grant his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 GREGORY, Chief Judge, dissenting in part: I would grant the motion for compassionate release, deny the motion to remand, and grant the motion for appointment of counsel. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.