USCA4 Appeal: 23-6822 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HECTOR RUBEN MCGURK, a/k/a Ruben, a/k/a El Mechanico,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00190-FDW-1)

Submitted: January 27, 2025 Decided: January 30, 2025

Before AGEE, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jayashree Mitra, CARLTON FIELDS, P.A., New York, New York, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6822 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Hector Ruben McGurk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. “Pursuant to

,

a court generally may not modify a sentence ‘once it has been imposed.’” United States v.

Melvin,

, 623 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting

(c)). “But a district

court may reduce a sentence through a motion for compassionate release.” United States

v. Bond,

, 383 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2023).

We review the denial of compassionate release under

(c)(1)(A) for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown,

, 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.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Under this standard, this Court may

not substitute its judgment for that of the district court.” United States v. Bethea,

, 831 (4th Cir. 2022) (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,

, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

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

(a)

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

“The factors applicable to the

determination of what circumstances can constitute an extraordinary and compelling

reason for release from prison are complex and not easily summarized.” United States v.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6822 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

Hargrove,

, 197 (4th Cir. 2022). The court should “balance the severity of the

inmate’s personal circumstances, on the one hand, against the needs for incarceration, on

the other.”

“[T]he inquiry is multifaceted and must take into account the totality of the

relevant circumstances.”

.

As noted, “if a court finds that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and

compelling reasons, it is still not required to grant the defendant’s motion for a sentence

reduction.” United States v. High,

, 186 (4th Cir. 2021). “Rather, it must

‘consider[]’ the § 3553(a) sentencing factors ‘to the extent that they are applicable’ in

deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of

imprisonment.” Id. (quoting

(c)(1)(A)). “District courts enjoy broad

discretion in evaluating the § 3553(a) factors when deciding a motion for compassionate

release.” United States v. Centeno-Morales,

, 279 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “A movant for compassionate release bears the burden of

showing why the § 3553(a) factors justify a modified sentence.”

On appeal, McGurk challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and that the § 3553(a)

factors did not support his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court

addressed all of McGurk’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed

for his release and specifically explained why each failed to meet the standard. Moreover,

the court did not commit any legal error in weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors and did

not abuse its discretion in concluding that they did not weigh in favor of McGurk’s release.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6822 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/30/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

4