USCA4 Appeal: 24-7014 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AKIBA MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00581-CCB-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akiba Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7014 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Akiba Matthews appeals the district court’s order denying his fifth motion for

compassionate release under

(c)(1)(A). We vacate and remand for further

proceedings.

In March 2021, the district court granted Matthews’s first motion for compassionate

release, to which the Government consented, reducing his sentence to 20 years’

imprisonment. As part of the agreement, Matthews waived his right to seek a further

sentence reduction based on COVID-19. The district court granted the motion without

explanation. Thereafter, Matthews filed a second motion for compassionate release, in

which he challenged his

(g)(1) conviction. The district court denied that

motion due to the parties’ agreement. Matthews then filed his third and fourth motions for

compassionate release, in which he challenged his

(c) conviction. The

district court denied those motions, again relying on the parties’ agreement. On appeal, we

explained that Matthews had not waived his right to seek compassionate release on grounds

apart from COVID-19. But we nevertheless affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Matthews raised multiple grounds for relief in his fifth motion for compassionate

release, and the Government engaged with the substance of the motion in its response in

opposition. The district court, however, denied the motion in a brief order, noting that we

had affirmed the denial of Matthews’s most recent motion for compassionate release and

finding that Matthews had not shown a change in circumstances demonstrating

extraordinary and compelling reasons for a further sentence reduction.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7014 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

We “review[] the denial of compassionate release motions pursuant to

(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. 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.” United States v. Brown,

(4th Cir. 2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone,

(4th Cir. 2023). After

conducting this analysis, the district court may “grant the motion if (3) the relevant

(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.”

A district court is not required to explicitly acknowledge and address each one of

the movant’s arguments in support of compassionate release. United States v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 2024). Still, the district court must “set forth enough to satisfy

[our] court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for

exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.”

(internal quotation marks

omitted).

On appeal, Matthews argues that the district court failed to consider any of his

grounds for compassionate release. We agree that the district court’s explanation was

deficient. Matthews’s first motion was based on COVID-19, and his next three motions

sought relief that is not available through a motion for compassionate release. See United

States v. Ferguson,

, 270-72 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that defendant may

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7014 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

not challenge validity of conviction in compassionate release motion). In contrast, his fifth

motion raised some potentially valid grounds for compassionate release. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b), p.s. (2023). Because the district court did not

analyze those arguments in its order, we cannot engage in meaningful appellate review.

To ensure that the district court considered Matthews’s arguments in support of his fifth

motion for compassionate release, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for a

fuller explanation. ∗ And because Matthews’s release date is fast approaching, the mandate

shall issue forthwith so that the district court may proceed without delay.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

∗ We express no view on the merits of Matthews’s motion.

4