USCA4 Appeal: 25-6413 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH HERMAN LAWSON, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00228-TDS-1)

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

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Herman Lawson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6413 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Herman Lawson, Sr., 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.”

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. The district court

addressed Lawson’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