United States v. Abdullah Mattocks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 26-6131
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6131 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ABDULLAH MATTOCKS, a/k/a Abdul-Nur Zaid, a/k/a Abdul Zaid, a/k/a Abdul Nur, a/k/a Abdullah Ebin Zaid Mattocks,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00387-RDA-1)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdullah Mattocks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-6131 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Abdullah Mattocks appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of

a motion for compassionate release 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).

“To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner

is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and compelling

reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (citation

modified).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

Mattocks failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and that,

even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mattocks, No. 1:08-cr-00387-RDA-1

(E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026). 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