United States v. Tradon Drayton

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6516 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6516

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRADON MARQUEZ DRAYTON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00372-BHH-1)

Submitted: April 17, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tradon Marquez Drayton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6516 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Tradon Marquez Drayton appeals the district court’s text order denying Drayton’s second motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying Drayton’s motion based on its evaluation of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors identified in § 3583(e). See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999) (providing standard of review). In response to Drayton’s arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court that Drayton’s claim to be entitled to post-release relief under Amendment 826 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual is not cognizable because this amendment does not apply retroactively. See United States v. Henderson, 136 F.4th 527, 535 n.2 (4th Cir. 2025) (explaining that, although the Guidelines were amended effective November 1, 2024, “to exclude acquitted conduct from the definition of relevant conduct[, . . . [t]hat amendment is not retroactive” (citing USSG § 1B1.10(d))).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s text order. United States v. Drayton, No. 2:21-cr-00372-BHH-1 (D.S.C. June 6, 2025). 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