United States v. Carl Morris, II

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6642

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL WILLIAM MORRIS, II, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cr-00015-EKD-JCH-1)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl William Morris, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Carl William Morris, 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 18 U.S.C. § 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. (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, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after this analysis may the district court grant the motion if . . . the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id. On appeal, Morris challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and that the § 3553(a) factors did not support his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court did not err in determining that, regardless of whether extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors counseled against Morris’s release because of the nature of the offense, need for the sentence imposed, and need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. The court also acknowledged and appropriately considered Morris’s arguments.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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