USCA4 Appeal: 24-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6978

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD RAY MORGAN, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-6979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD RAY MORGAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00414-TDS-1; 1:14-cr- 00194-TDS-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Ray Morgan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: Donald Ray Morgan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of Morgan’s second motion for compassionate release under 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 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 Morgan failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and that, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. Accordingly, we deny Morgan’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Morgan, Nos. 1:14-cr-00414-TDS-1, 1:14-cr-00194-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2024).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6979 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

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