United States of America v. TOMMY JERMAINE CLARK, JR., a/k/a Sosa

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOMMY JERMAINE CLARK, JR., a/k/a Sosa,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00127-JAG-1)
Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Jermaine Clark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Joseph McGorman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Jessica Lee Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Jermaine Clark, 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 18 U.S.C. § 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, Clark challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. We find no abuse of
discretion. The district court addressed Clark’s arguments that extraordinary and
compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why they failed to
meet the standard.

-- 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 --