United States of America v. Silas Thomas King

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILAS THOMAS KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-6100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILAS THOMAS KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MOC-3; 3:01-cr-00211-
MOC-1)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Silas Thomas King appeals the district court’s order denying without prejudice his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies before the warden of his facility. We review this issue de novo.
See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 127 (4th Cir. 2021) (addressing
administrative exhaustion requirement in compassionate release context as statutory
interpretation issue and reviewing de novo); see also Custis v. Davis, 851 F.3d 358, 361
(4th Cir. 2017) (“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies.”).
A “defendant may move for compassionate release after [he] has fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [Bureau of Prisons] to bring a motion on
[his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the
defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 268
(4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, King cites United
States v. Evans, 504 F. Supp. 3d 519, 527 (E.D. Va. 2020), in support of his claim that he
did not need to request the warden to bring a motion on his behalf because he sought only
to file a renewed motion for compassionate release. In Evans, the district court held that
the defendant did not need to begin anew the administrative exhaustion process for a
motion to reconsider because she had requested the warden to file a motion for her less
than six months prior. Id. King’s motion here is not a renewed motion; it is an entirely
new motion for compassionate release, and he has not satisfied either of the routes required
for review before the district court. See Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 268.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --