United States of America v. ROBERT LEE BROWN, II, a/k/a Rob

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --