United States v. Leroy Dixon, Sr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2026
• Docket: 25-6824
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6824 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6824

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEROY DONNELL DIXON, SR., a/k/a Roy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00390-JFA-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Donnell Dixon, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Frederick Michael O’Mara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6824 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Donnell Dixon, Sr., 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 § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an 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).

On appeal, Dixon challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. We discern no abuse of

discretion. The district court adequately addressed Dixon’s arguments that his health

conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and explained why

it rejected his arguments. 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