United States of America v. Jose Alberto Sibrian Garcia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6240
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ALBERTO SIBRIAN GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00259-JKB-13)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Alberto Sibrian Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alberto Sibrian Garcia 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, Garcia 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 Garcia’s arguments that extraordinary and
compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why they failed to
meet the standard. The court also properly weighed the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that
they did not counsel in favor of Garcia’s release.

-- 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 --