USCA4 Appeal: 24-6702 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OSCAR OMAR LOBO-LOPEZ, a/k/a Joker, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00194-LMB-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6702 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reconsideration.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “To grant a compassionate release motion, the district must conclude that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lobo-Lopez failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and that, even if he had, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Lobo-Lopez, No. 1:08- cr-00194-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. June 4 & 26, 2024).

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