United States of America v. Abdullah Mattocks, a/k/a Abdul-Nur Zaid, a/k/a Abdul Zaid, a/k/a Abdul Nur, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDULLAH MATTOCKS, a/k/a Abdul-Nur Zaid, a/k/a Abdul Zaid, a/k/a Abdul
Nur, a/k/a Abdullah Ebin Zaid Mattocks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00387-RDA-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdullah Mattocks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Abdullah Mattocks appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of
a motion for compassionate release 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).
“To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner
is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and compelling
reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (citation
modified).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
Mattocks failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and that,
even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mattocks, No. 1:08-cr-00387-RDA-1
(E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026). 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 of 2 --