USCA4 Appeal: 25-6156 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW J. MAHONE, a/k/a Matthew James Mahone,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00027-MFU-1)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew James Mahone, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6156 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Mahone appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of compassionate

release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown,

(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.”

(citation modified).

“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). “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.”

On appeal, Mahone challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. We find no abuse of

discretion. The district court addressed Mahone’s arguments that extraordinary and

compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why they failed to

meet the standard.

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

2