US v. Delaqui Carter, No. 21-6701 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6701 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DELAQUI O’JMAR CARTER, a/k/a Roosevelt, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cr-00677-MGL-5) Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delaqui O’Jmar Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Delaqui O’Jmar Carter appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), 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 Carter’s motion for compassionate release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Carter, No. 3:18-cr-00677-MGL-5 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 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.