US v. Odassis Thomas, No. 23-6302 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ODASSIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00175-HEH-3) Submitted: April 12, 2024 Decided: April 24, 2024 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Gerald T. Zerkin, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan GranoMickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Odassis Michael Thomas appeals the district court’s memorandum order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court concluded that Thomas failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief and that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors independently weighed against early release. We have reviewed the record and Thomas’ arguments on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying compassionate release. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). We note that the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis was sufficiently well reasoned and supported by the record. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 833 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm. 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 in 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.