US v. Wayne Vick, No. 21-6603 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6603 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE VICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00075-D-1) Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: October 22, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Wayne Vick appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release in this case. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court order denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Vick, No. 5:12-cr-00075-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 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 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.