United States v. Christian Hood

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6934 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN DON’TAE HOOD, a/k/a Chris Hood, a/k/a Beezy, a/k/a Bezzy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00080-AJT-1)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian Don’tae Hood, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6934 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Christian Don’tae Hood appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his informal brief, Hood does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review of that decision. 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hood’s motion for compassionate release. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (providing standard). The district court addressed Hood’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release and explained why it rejected those arguments. The court also recognized Hood’s positive postsentencing conduct but declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the orders denying Hood’s motions for a sentence reduction and for compassionate release. United States v. Hood, No. 1:17-cr-00080-AJT-1 (E.D. Va. Sep. 4, 2024). 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