USCA4 Appeal: 24-6822 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTOWAN THORNE, a/k/a Smooth, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00165-LMB-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antowan Thorne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6822 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Antowan Thorne appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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 court 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).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Thorne failed to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons to grant relief and that, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Thorne, No. 1:14-cr- 00165-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. July 18, 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