USCA4 Appeal: 25-6521 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6521

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WELDON MOTIC JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cr-00020-M-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Weldon Motic Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6521 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Weldon Motic Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 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).

“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, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id. On appeal, Jackson challenges the district court’s conclusion that if he had been convicted in the Second Circuit, he would not have qualified as a career offender. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court addressed Jackson’s argument and specifically explained why any disparity based on the difference in law between the circuits did not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant a sentence reduction.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6521 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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