US v. Christopher Taylor, No. 21-6707 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6707 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda, Defendant - Appellant. No. 21-7538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00009-1) Submitted: November 28, 2022 Decided: December 12, 2022 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Jermaine Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Jermaine Taylor appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release, motions for reconsideration, and motions for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate release and reconsideration based on the court’s conclusion that Taylor failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motions for an evidentiary hearing. See Richardson v. Kornegay, 3 F.4th 687, 695 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing in federal habeas corpus proceeding). Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Taylor, No. 3:15-cr-00009-1 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 21, 2021, Aug. 2, 2021, Aug. 30, 2021, Sept. 16, 2021 & Oct. 15, 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 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.