USA v. YOUNG

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 1:09CR185-1
)
JAMES COREY YOUNG )
MEMORANDUM OPNION AND ORDER
Defendant James Corey Young (“Defendant”) is a federal
inmate serving a 120-month sentence. Defendant has filed a
Motion to Reduce Sentence re Compassionate Release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Doc. 37.) The Government responded
opposing Defendant’s motion, (Doc. 43), and Defendant filed a
reply. (Doc. 45.) For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s
Motion to Reduce Sentence re Compassionate Release will be
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 10, 2009, Defendant pled guilty to one count
of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Doc. 31 at 1; Minute Entry
9/10/2009.) He was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment, and
the sentence was ordered to run partially concurrent with the
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 12

- 2 -
undischarged portion of a Virginia state sentence.1 (Doc. 31 at
2; Doc. 34 at 7.) On November 3, 2023, Defendant filed his
motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 37.) He argues for a
reduction in sentence based on family circumstances, his lengthy
sentence, and his rehabilitative efforts. (Id.) Defendant is 51
years old and has a projected release date of February 21, 2028.2
II. ANALYSIS
A sentence imposed under the law is intended to be final.
United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010).
However, a sentence may be modified when a specific provision of
law or statute provides a basis to do so. Id.; see also 18
U.S.C. § 3582(b). Section 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), often known
as the compassionate release provision, allows a court to reduce
a sentence when “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warrant
such a reduction, the reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and a
consideration of the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors
1 Defendant was serving 14 years in prison for a conviction
under Virginia state law when he was indicted on the instant
offense. (Doc. 33 at 4.) The court allowed Defendant’s federal
sentence to run concurrently with any time remaining on the
Virginia state sentence as of on April 19, 2021. (Doc. 34 at 4,
7.)
2 BOP Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/(last
visited Feb. 9, 2026).
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 12

- 3 -
support a reduction in sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i);
see United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 654 (4th Cir. 2024).
Section 3582 requires a defendant to exhaust administrative
remedies before seeking relief in court. See 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). The records before the court indicate Defendant
made an administrative request for compassionate release which
was denied, (Doc. 44-2 at 1-2), and the Government does not
contest exhaustion. (Doc. 43 at 8.) Therefore, the court will
proceed to the merits of Defendant’s motion.
A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
1. Family Circumstances
First, Defendant argues that the Court should grant a
reduction of sentence because he needs to act as a caregiver for
his daughter because she has been placed in DSS custody. (Doc.
37 at 2-3.) The Sentencing Commission policy statement
recognizes the care of a child may be an extraordinary and
compelling circumstance supporting a reduction of sentence in
the case of:
The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the
defendant’s minor child or the defendant’s child who is
18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care
because of a mental or physical disability or a medical
condition.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(b)(3)(A).
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 12

- 4 -
According to Defendant, the mother of his daughter has a
history of substance abuse and mental health issues and
therefore, his daughter was in the custody of another family
member. (Doc. 37 at 3.) However, his daughter was removed from
the care of that person and placed in DSS custody. (Id.)
Defendant asserts that “[w]hat’s best for [his daughter] is
really the presence of her father.” (Id.)
The records confirm that Defendant’s daughter was
previously cared for by her grandmother but removed from her
custody. A Permanency Planning Order indicates that Defendant’s
daughter was “adjudicated as neglected and dependent” in
September of 2022, and neither her mother nor the prior
custodian was considered an appropriate caregiver at that time.
(Id. at 39-41.) Instead, Defendant’s daughter was placed by DSS
with a foster family in guardianship status. (Id. at 39.) The
order concluded “it is in the best interests of the juvenile”
that the “primary plan is guardianship with a concurrent
secondary plan of reunification.” (Id. at 42.)
Defendant is unable to show an extraordinary and compelling
reason for a reduction of sentence based on the need to act as a
caregiver for his daughter. The court acknowledges the difficult
circumstances faced by Defendant’s daughter. However, she is now
over 18 years of age, no longer a minor who requires a
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 12

- 5 -
caregiver. (Id. at 37.) Nor is there an allegation or any
information to suggest that she is incapable of self-care due to
a mental or physical illness, the standard applicable to a child
18 years or older. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A).
Moreover, even when Defendant’s daughter was a minor the
record would not support a reduction of sentence on this basis.
The state court charged with determining custody concluded that
Defendant was not an appropriate legal custodian or caregiver.
The Permanency Planning Order states that “[r]eturn of the
juvenile to the parents . . . is contrary to her best interests,
at this time.” (Doc. 37 at 42.) This does not appear to be
merely a consequence of Defendant’s unavailability due to
incarceration. In reaching its decision the state court found
that “James Corey Young . . . is the alleged father of the
juvenile. The father’s name is not listed on the birth
certificate. Paternity is an issue.” (Doc. 37 at 38, ¶3.) The
court also found that “James has never parented Ciara.” (Id. at
40, ¶24.) Moreover, while the record indicates that Defendant
has had contact with his daughter, she has never met him in
person. (Id. at 28.) Therefore, even if Defendant’s daughter was
still a minor, the record would not support granting a reduction
of sentence to allow Defendant to act as caregiver. Accordingly,
Defendant has failed to show an extraordinary and compelling
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 12

- 6 -
reason for a reduction of sentence based on family
circumstances.
2. Length of Sentence
Defendant next argues that he should be granted a reduction
of sentence based on the “length of sentence.” (Doc. 37 at 3.)
He argues that the combined term of imprisonment from his 120-
month sentence from this court along with his 14-year sentence
from the Virginia court is a reason to grant a reduction. (Id.)
The Sentencing Commission policy guidelines specify that an
unusually long sentence may be an extraordinary and compelling
reason to modify a sentence when:
(a) the defendant is serving an unusually long sentence;
(b) the defendant has served at least 10 years; and (c)
an intervening change in law has produced a gross
disparity between the sentence imposed and the sentence
likely to be imposed under the change in the law.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Defendant is unable to show an
extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction on this
basis.
First, Defendant has failed to allege an intervening change
in the law that shows a gross disparity between his sentence and
the sentence that would likely be imposed today. Defendant
simply argues that his sentence is long and he has seven years
left to serve. (Doc. 37 at 3-4.) Second, Defendant fails to show
an unusually long sentence. Defendant’s 120-month sentence from
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 6 of 12

- 7 -
this court is within the applicable guideline range and well
supported by the record. The combined time in prison from the
two sentences is undeniably lengthy. However, that is a result
of Defendant’s repeated criminal actions and convictions for
unrelated offenses. Additionally, this court already considered
the impact of the state sentence at the time of sentencing and
accounted for it by allowing some of Defendant’s federal
sentence to run concurrently to his state sentence.
In any case, Defendant has served less than six years of
the sentence imposed by this court. (Doc. 44-1 at 3.) Therefore,
even if he could meet the other criteria regarding an unusually
long sentence, Defendant would not be entitled to a reduction of
sentence at this time. See United States v. Crawley, 140 F. 4th
165, 172-73 (4th Cir. 2025) (affirming the district court’s
denial of a motion for compassionate release based on a
disparity in sentence when defendant had not “served at least 10
years” of his prison term). Accordingly, Defendant has failed to
show an extraordinary and compelling reason based on the length
of his sentence.
3. Rehabilitation
Defendant also asks the court to consider evidence of his
rehabilitation as a reason for a reduction. Rehabilitation “is
not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason” for
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 7 of 12

- 8 -
release, but the Court may consider rehabilitation “in
combination with other circumstances in determining whether and
to what extent” a sentence reduction is warranted. U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(d). Defendant contends that he has “taken constant steps
to rehabilitate himself” even during the COVID-19 lockdowns when
it was difficult to do so. (Doc. 37 at 4.)
The record confirms that Defendant has received his GED and
taken classes to learn employment skills and better himself
while incarcerated. While in custody in Virginia he participated
in numerous courses and completed the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration program (“SAMSHA”). While in
federal custody he has taken BOP programming in areas such as
career readiness and drug education and has maintained a clear
disciplinary record. (Doc. 44-4 at 1; Doc. 37 at 30-35; Doc. 44-
3 at 1.) This post-sentencing evidence is encouraging and
indicates Defendant is working to better himself. However, on
this basis alone, Defendant has failed to show the type of
extraordinary evidence that might support a reduction of
sentence. See United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1072 (7th
Cir. 2023) (“[t]aking classes while incarcerated is common
rather than extraordinary.”); United States v. Logan, 532 F.
Supp. 3d 725, 735 (D. Minn. 2021) (noting prisoners are supposed
to follow rules, work at a prison job, and take classes and
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 8 of 12

- 9 -
doing so is not extraordinary). Accordingly, the court finds
that while Defendant’s efforts towards rehabilitation are
commendable, they are not an extraordinary and compelling reason
for compassionate release.
Finally, in his reply, Defendant asks the court to consider
the cumulative impact of his three grounds under U.S.S.G §
1B1.13(b)(5). (Doc. 45 at 2.) Section 1B1.13(b(5) provides that
an extraordinary and compelling reason may exist when a
defendant “presents any other circumstance or combination of
circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together
with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4),
are similar in gravity to those described in paragraphs (1)
thought (4).” As discussed, Defendant’s arguments regarding his
family circumstances, the length of his sentence, and his
rehabilitative efforts fail to demonstrate an extraordinary and
compelling reason for a reduction of sentence. The court finds
that considering the cumulative impact of these unsuccessful
arguments is not any more compelling. Compassionate release is
reserved for extraordinary cases, and whether Defendant’s
arguments are considered individually or cumulatively he fails
to meet this high standard.
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 9 of 12

- 10 -
B. Section 3553(a) Factors
Having determined Defendant fails to show an extraordinary
and compelling reason to modify his sentence, the court is not
required to consider if the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in
favor of a reduction. However, the court finds, in any case,
such an analysis does not support granting Defendant relief.
Section 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) requires a sentence that is
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the
goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In making the
determination, the court weighs the nature of the offense, a
defendant’s personal history, the sentence relative to the
seriousness of the offense, the need for a sentence to find just
punishment for the crime, the need to protect the public and
deter crime, the need to provide rehabilitative circumstances,
and the need to avoid sentencing disparity. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Defendant argues that the “16 years of incarceration that
[he] has served satisfies the purpose of sentencing.” (Doc. 37
at 5.) He argues that he has accepted responsibility for his
crimes and would not be a danger if released. (Id.) In addition,
Defendant has also submitted numerous letters written by family
members who appeal for his release, note his good qualities, and
describe the benefits for their family should Defendant be
released early. (Id. at 8-29.)
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 10 of 12

- 11 -
The court appreciates the sentiments of Defendant’s family
members and takes note of the family support Defendant will have
upon his release. Nonetheless, these considerations do not
outweigh the § 3553(a) factors which counsel against a
reduction. First, Defendant’s offense was serious and shows a
blatant disregard for the law. Defendant, who has multiple prior
felony convictions, was arrested for the current offense after
he was found driving around with a loaded .38 special revolver.
(Doc. 15-2 at 1-2.) The sentence falls within the applicable
guideline range, and the court already provided consideration
for the fact Defendant was serving a lengthy state court
sentence by ordering some of the federal time to run
concurrently with the state sentence. A further reduction would
not reflect the seriousness of the offense or promote respect
for the law.
Defendant’s criminal history also weighs against early
release. Defendant has prior felony convictions including for
possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and felony
possession of cocaine, and it appears that prior incarceration
did little to deter additional criminal conduct. As the court
recognized at sentencing, Defendant’s criminal past had shown
elements of violence and his “propensity to carry a firearm
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 11 of 12

- 12 -
poses a substantial danger.”3 (Doc. 34 at 7.) Therefore, the
court concluded that a sentence at the top of the guideline
range was necessary. (Id.) Nothing Defendant has presented in
support of his motion for compassionate release alters this
conclusion. Consequently, the court finds Defendant’s current
sentence is “sufficient but not greater than necessary” to serve
the goals of sentencing. Any lesser sentence would not afford
adequate deterrence, protect the public, or promote respect for
the law.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court finds that
Defendant has failed to show an extraordinary and compelling
reason for a reduction of sentence and the § 3553(a) factors
weigh against a reduction of sentence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reduce
Sentence re Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A), (Doc. 37), is DENIED.
This the 23rd day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
United States District Judge
3 For example, Defendant’s Virginia offense involved physical
harm to the victim. Defendant and two co-defendants, armed with
guns, broke into a home and when the homeowner returned during
the burglary they tied him up and assaulted him before leaving
with money, clothes, and his car. (Doc. 28 at 12-13, 31-31.)
Case 1:09-cr-00185-WO Document 48 Filed 02/23/26 Page 12 of 12