United States of America v. Carl William Morris, Ii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6642
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL WILLIAM MORRIS, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cr-00015-EKD-JCH-1)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl William Morris, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carl William Morris, II, 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 . . . the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.
On appeal, Morris 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 support his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court did
not err in determining that, regardless of whether extraordinary and compelling reasons
existed, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors counseled against Morris’s release because
of the nature of the offense, need for the sentence imposed, and need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities. The court also acknowledged and appropriately considered Morris’s
arguments.

-- 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 --