United States v. Andrew Hargett, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6725 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW HARGETT, JR., a/k/a Moneybun,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00374-D-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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Hargett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6725 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Hargett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and his motion to appoint counsel,

confining his appeal to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. 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 denying Hargett’s

motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Hargett, Jr.,

No. 5:15-cr-00374-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2025). 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