US v. Richard Bryant, No. 21-6156 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD L. BRYANT, a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:92-cr-00088-6) Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: November 2, 2021 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and declining to reconsider his motion for a sentence reduction. We review a court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bryant’s motion. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187-91 (4th Cir. 2021). Likewise, the court properly refused to reconsider Bryant’s motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act where his case had already received a full review on the merits. First Step Act, § 404(c). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v Bryant, No. 2:92-cr-00088-6 (E.D. Va., Jan. 13, 2021). We deny Bryant’s motion to expedite as moot and 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

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.