Antonio Edwards v. US, No. 22-6058 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6058 ANTONIO EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00650-DKC-3) Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 27, 2022 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Bijon Ali Mostoufi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. * We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, and we grant Edwards’ “motion of declaration to cure deficiencies upon consideration for extension of time.” 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 In his informal brief, Edwards challenges various aspects of his convictions and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because Edwards did not raise these claims in the district court and does not present any exceptional circumstances, these issues are not properly before us. In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)). * 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.