United States v. Jamaa Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 25-6298
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6298 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMAA I. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-7)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamaa I. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6298 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jamaa I. Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of compassionate

release under § 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. (citation modified). “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, Johnson reasserts the merits of his filings below and challenges the

district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling

reasons for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson, No.

2:13-cr-00091-7 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 10, 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