USCA4 Appeal: 24-6450 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE BAUM, a/k/a Dog Pound,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00002-FL-1)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 14, 2025

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Baum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6450 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Baum appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his renewed

(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.

Burleigh,

, 548 (4th Cir. 2025). “A district court abuses its discretion when

it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to follow statutory requirements, fails to consider

judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022) (alteration and 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,

(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.”

“Even if a district court abuses its discretion in assessing whether the defendant

presents extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, this Court may still affirm if the

district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was sound.” United States v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 2024). “Importantly, district courts enjoy broad discretion in

analyzing the § 3553(a) factors when deciding a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion.” Burleigh,

145 F.4th at 548 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6450 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in Baum’s sentence.

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

3