United States of America v. Rahsaan Jackson Garth

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAHSAAN JACKSON GARTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cr-00703-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rahsaan Jackson Garth, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rahsaan Jackson Garth 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. (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 (cleaned up).
We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Garth’s
compassionate release motion. The court found that Garth presented an extraordinary and
compelling reason for relief but ultimately concluded that relief was not warranted after
considering the § 3553(a) factors. In doing so, the court adequately addressed Garth’s
circumstances, arguments, and rehabilitation, and it thoroughly explained why the
§ 3553(a) factors supported its decision.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Garth, No. 6:22-cr-
00703-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --