United States of America v. Victoria Christine Taylor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTORIA CHRISTINE TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard E. Meyers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cr-00314-M-3)
Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victoria Christine Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Victoria Christine Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 an 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
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
On appeal, Taylor challenges the district court’s conclusion that she failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. We discern no abuse of
discretion. The district court adequately addressed Taylor’s arguments that her health
conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic and explained why it rejected her arguments. Accordingly, we deny
Taylor’s motions for the appointment of 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

-- 2 of 2 --