United States v. James Warren

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. James Warren

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6617 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES COREY WARREN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00082-AWA-LRL-1)

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

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Corey Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6617 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

James Corey Warren appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release under

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(1)(A)(i), as supplemented. After

reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that Warren had not established extraordinary and compelling circumstances

and that, in any event, the

18 U.S.C. § 3553

(a) factors counseled against his early release.

See United States v. Johnson,

143 F.4th 212, 215

(4th Cir. 2025) (stating standard).

Moreover, while the three-year delay in the district court’s ruling does appear excessive,

Warren may file a new motion for compassionate release if his circumstances have

materially changed, and the delay does not automatically entitle Warren to relief, as he

suggests. Accordingly, we deny Warren’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm

the district court’s order. United States v. Warren, No. 2:21-cr-00082-AWA-LRL-1 (E.D.

Va. July 7, 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished