USCA4 Appeal: 25-6549 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6549

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE LONNIE BAINES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00255-LCB-2)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Lonnie Baines, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6549 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jermaine Lonnie Baines appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and motion to appoint counsel, confining his appeal to the court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release.

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 (citation modified).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and other relevant factors counseled against a sentence reduction for Baines. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Baines, No. 1:13-cr-00255-LCB-2 (M.D.N.C. June 17, 2025). 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