USCA4 Appeal: 25-6730 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6730

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6730 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Kenny Carter appeals the district court’s order denying his

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

release under

(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, Carter challenges the district court’s conclusion that Carter’s alleged

sentencing disparity did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for

compassionate release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court addressed

Carter’s argument and explained why the asserted sentencing disparity did not amount to

an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant compassionate release.

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