US v. Desmond Singletary, No. 22-6665 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6665 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESMOND SINGLETARY, a/k/a Six, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00054-DCN-6) Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Desmond Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Robert de Holl, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Charleston, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Desmond Singletary 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 in determining that Singletary failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release or that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release. 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. United States v. Singletary, No. 2:16-cr-00054-DCN-6 (D.S.C. June 1, 2022). We deny Singletary’s motion for the appointment of counsel, and we grant his motion to seal only as to the motion to seal itself. 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.