US v. Andre Youngblood, No. 21-7658 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7658 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE YOUNGBLOOD, a/k/a Michael S. Long, a/k/a Michael Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00308-RMG-1) Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: June 2, 2022 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Senior Judge Floyd dissents. Andre Youngblood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In December 2020, the district court denied Andre Youngblood’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We vacated that judgment and remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Youngblood, 858 F. App’x 96 (4th Cir. 2021) (No. 20-7836). On remand, the district court denied Youngblood’s motion again, concluding that he had failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release and that, in any event, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. On appeal, Youngblood challenges only the district court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Youngblood’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, Youngblood has forfeited appellate review of this dispositive ruling. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 FLOYD, Senior Judge, dissenting: Upon review of the record and the informal brief, I respectfully dissent and would vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. 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.
