United States v. Evan Rosser

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 25-6518
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6518 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EVAN THOMAS ROSSER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00103-LMB-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Evan Thomas Rosser, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6518 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Evan Thomas Rosser 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, Rosser argues that a sentence reduction is warranted because his

healthcare before incarceration better treated his diagnosed mental health disorders and

because he wishes to provide care for his recently widowed mother. We find no abuse of

discretion. The district court addressed how the Bureau of Prisons has adequately treated

Rosser’s health and how Rosser has failed to establish that he is the sole caretaker for his

mother. It also did not abuse its discretion in finding that the § 3553(a) factors did not

weigh in favor of a sentence reduction because Rosser has not yet served half of his term

of imprisonment.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6518 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny Rosser’s motion to appoint counsel and 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