United States v. Mackie Walker, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 26-6224 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-6224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MACKIE JAMES WALKER, JR., a/k/a Mackie J. Walker, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00001-MGL-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mackie James Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Scott Matthews, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 26-6224 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mackie James Walker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. * We review a district court’s denial of

a motion for compassionate release 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).

“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).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker’s

motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Walker,

No. 1:16-cr-00001-MGL-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2026). 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

* Walker has filed two motions to appoint counsel. We deny those motions.