US v. Bernard Celestine, No. 22-7152 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-9) Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Celestine appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for compassionate release and for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Celestine’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Celestine, No. 4:95-cr00041-D-9 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2022). While we grant Celestine’s motions to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief and for leave to file a supplemental brief and appendix, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel and to dismiss the appeal. We grant in part Celestine’s motion to seal the supplemental appendix and accordingly seal pages Supp. A-45 through Supp. A-71 thereof, but we deny the motion to seal as to the remainder of those materials. 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.