United States v. Robert Brown, II

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6652 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT LEE BROWN, II, a/k/a Rob, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:18-cr-01101-BHH-2)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brown, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6652 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Brown, II, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(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, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (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.” Id. (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, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id. On appeal, Brown challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and argues that the court considered only his presentence conduct in analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court addressed Brown’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