BLD-026 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2697 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

STEVEN LOCKS, JR., Appellant ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:15-cr-00538-002) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson ____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 6, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed December 11, 2025) _________

OPINION* _________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM

Appellant Steven Locks, Jr., appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion

for compassionate release under

(c). The Government has timely

moved for summary affirmance of the District Court’s order. After a review of the

record, we conclude the appeal presents no substantial question. We therefore grant the

Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 2016, Locks pled guilty to multiple charges of employing a child to engage in

sexually explicit conduct to create child pornography, plus related crimes. Locks was

sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release. In 2025,

Locks filed a motion for compassionate release, which the District Court denied. Locks

timely filed an appeal.1

A district court may modify a federal inmate’s term of imprisonment if it finds that

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a modification. See § 3582(c)(1). Even if

an inmate is eligible for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(1), a district court may

deny that motion if modification would be inconsistent with the factors set forth in

§ 3553(a). See Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330-31.

1 We have jurisdiction under

. We review the District Court’s order denying the motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb that decision unless the District Court committed a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Pawlowski,

, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

2 In his motion, Locks argued that (1) he was not a risk to the community; (2) he

had worked to rehabilitate himself; (3) his lifetime sentence of supervised release still

provided sufficient deterrence to criminal conduct; (4) he is a much needed support for

his fiancé and future family; (5) his sentence could be “substantially lower if he were to

be sentenced today”; (6) his early release would correct disparities between his sentence

and that of others with similar records found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) he had

“needs of advanced health care not provided in the Bureau of Prisons.” The Government

opposed his motion, arguing that rehabilitation by itself was not sufficient, and that Locks

had not provided any extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. In

denying Locks’ motion, the District Court concluded that he did not satisfy the

requirements for compassionate release. The District Court rejected Locks’ arguments

for why he should be released because of the “factual background of the case and

[Locks’] conduct,” because Locks did not show he was “suffering from any abnormal

conditions,” and for the reasons proffered by the Government.

Locks argues that the District Court improperly applied the pre-2023 sentencing

guidelines to his motion and that he meets the standard for compassionate release based

on his medical conditions and his having received an unusually long sentence. However,

the District Court applied the correct standard, and we discern no error in the District

Court’s rejection of Locks’ arguments. Locks has not explained why any current medical

conditions qualify under the “medical circumstances” standards set forth in U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13(1)(B)(i) or § 1B1.13(1)(C). Indeed, Locks failed to identify in his motion what

3 medical conditions he believed satisfied the standard, choosing instead to attach prison

medical documents listing various conditions. He also has not identified any change in

law that would warrant a reduction in his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) for an

“unusually long sentence.”2

As Locks’ appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the

District Court’s judgment.

2 As we agree that Locks has not shown an extraordinary or compelling reasons for his release, there is no need to consider the § 3553(a) factors.

4