United States of America v. Morgan Gregory Robinson, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MORGAN GREGORY ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00343-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Randall S. Galyon, Acting United States
Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Morgan Gregory Robinson, Jr., 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).
“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:
(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that
such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after
this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.
On appeal, Robinson challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and that the § 3553(a)
factors did not counsel in favor of his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district
court addressed Robinson’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed
for his release and specifically explained why they failed to meet the standard. The court
also did not abuse its discretion in finding that Robinson’s early release would not be
appropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --