United States of America v. Donald Ray Morgan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD RAY MORGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 24-6979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD RAY MORGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00414-TDS-1; 1:14-cr-
00194-TDS-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Ray Morgan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Donald Ray Morgan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the denial of Morgan’s second motion for compassionate release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release 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 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 (alterations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
Morgan failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and that,
even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. Accordingly,
we deny Morgan’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Morgan, Nos. 1:14-cr-00414-TDS-1, 1:14-cr-00194-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C.
Sept. 6, 2024).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --