United States v. Carl Morris, II

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 25-6642
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

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 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6642 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 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