United States v. Lorenzo Butts

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-7049
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7049 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-7049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LORENZO BUTTS, a/k/a Lorenza Butts, a/k/a Lorenzo Butts, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00067-AWA-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Butts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-7049 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Butts appeals the district court’s order denying his emergency motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.

“This Court reviews the denial of compassionate release motions . . . for an abuse

of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “Under this

standard, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court.” United States

v. Washington, 161 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2025) (alteration and internal quotation marks

omitted). Rather, “we may only 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 other

words, “an abuse of discretion is when the district judge is fundamentally wrong, not when

we disagree with the district court’s judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A district court analyzes a compassionate release motion in two steps.” United

States v. Moody, 115 F.4th 304, 310 (4th Cir. 2024). At the first step, the court “determines

whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. To be eligible, the court must

find that relief is warranted because of extraordinary and compelling reasons and consistent

with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). At the second step, “the court considers whether the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors support relief.” Id.

Here, the district court found that Butts’s medical condition qualified as an

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release but denied relief based on

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-7049 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in finding that the extremely serious nature of Butts’s offense

conduct, his extensive criminal history, and the need to promote respect for law counseled

against granting his emergency motion for compassionate release.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. * 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

* We deny Butts’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.