United States of America v. Evan Thomas Rosser

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EVAN THOMAS ROSSER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00103-LMB-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Evan Thomas Rosser, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Evan Thomas Rosser 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 (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.
On appeal, Rosser argues that a sentence reduction is warranted because his
healthcare before incarceration better treated his diagnosed mental health disorders and
because he wishes to provide care for his recently widowed mother. We find no abuse of
discretion. The district court addressed how the Bureau of Prisons has adequately treated
Rosser’s health and how Rosser has failed to establish that he is the sole caretaker for his
mother. It also did not abuse its discretion in finding that the § 3553(a) factors did not
weigh in favor of a sentence reduction because Rosser has not yet served half of his term
of imprisonment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we deny Rosser’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

-- 3 of 3 --