United States of America v. Rodney Anton Williamson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6736
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY ANTON WILLIAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00474-LCB-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Anton Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Anton Williamson 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, Williamson 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
addressed Williamson’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for
his release and specifically explained why each failed to meet the standard. Moreover, the
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, in any event, consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors counseled against Williamson’s release.

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --