USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00013-JPJ-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall J. Keystone, Appellant Pro Se. Paula Danielle Stone, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Randall J. Keystone appeals the district court’s order denying his

(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. In his motion, Keystone asserted that

relief was warranted in light of his age, the nature of his offense conduct, the sentence he

received and the nature of his sentencing, and his post-sentencing conduct and efforts at

rehabilitation and because he was found guilty due to ineffective assistance of counsel and

had served his fair share of punishment. The district court acknowledged Keystone’s

assertion his conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel and concluded that

relief was unwarranted based on his claim that he had served his fair share of punishment.

For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further

proceedings.

Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of

imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The

court is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that

a defendant might raise” in deciding whether to grant a defendant-filed motion. United

States v. Jenkins,

(4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The court also must

consider the

(a) factors “to the extent that they are applicable.”

§ 3582(c)(1)(A).

We review a district court’s ruling on a compassionate release motion for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022). “A district court

abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially

recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard,

(4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, while there is no “categorical . . . requirement” that a district court

explicitly address the movant’s arguments or elucidate its reasoning, the court also errs if,

in light of the particular circumstances of the case, its explanation is “[in]adequate to allow

for meaningful appellate review.” United States v. High,

(4th Cir

2021); see Chavez-Meza v. United States,

(2018) (“Just how much

of an explanation [is] require[d] . . . depends . . . upon the circumstances of the particular

case.”). At bottom, the district court must “set forth enough to satisfy [this] court that it

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

decisionmaking authority.” High,

(cleaned up).

Here, the district court explicitly considered Keystone’s arguments that he was

found guilty because of ineffective assistance by trial counsel and that he had served his

fair share of punishment. Nevertheless, the court’s order does not reveal whether it

considered Keystone’s remaining arguments that relief was warranted in light of his age,

the nature of his offense conduct, the sentence he received and the nature of his sentencing,

and his post-sentencing conduct and efforts at rehabilitation and, if so, on what basis it

rejected those arguments. Accordingly, we can only speculate as to whether the court

adequately and reasonably considered Keystone’s arguments and properly applied the

governing law, or whether it abused its discretion.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

We express no view as to the merits of Keystone’s compassionate release motion. We

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7038 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4