United States of America v. Quasym Divad John Finch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUASYM DIVAD JOHN FINCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00006-GMG-RWT-2)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quasym Divad John Finch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quasym Divad John Finch appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions 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, Finch challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the § 3553(a) factors
do not support his release. We discern no abuse of discretion. The district court adequately
addressed Finch’s arguments and explained why it rejected those arguments. Moreover,
the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the § 3553(a) factors. 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 --