US v. Kevin Deese, No. 21-6687 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6687 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN RAY DEESE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00042-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helen C. Smith, Apex, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Ray Deese appeals the district court’s order denying his counseled 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We affirm. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of the district court’s considerable discretion. Specifically, the court outlined the relevant facts and procedural history of Deese’s case, discussed the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and provided an explanation for its ruling that was both rooted in the sentencing factors and acknowledged many of the mitigating arguments advanced by Deese. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Deese, No. 7:13-cr-00042-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 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.