United States v. Matthew Pittman

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6679 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/09/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW DARNELL PITTMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00102-D-1)

Submitted: June 12, 2026 Decided: July 9, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Darnell Pittman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6679 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/09/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Darnell Pittman 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).

“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.

In support of his motion for compassionate release, Pittman argued that, under

current law, he no longer qualifies as a career offender, and the district court should

consider this change in status to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence. In denying

Pittman’s motion, the district court summarily adopted the analysis in Government’s

response brief, including its argument that Pittman had not established extraordinary and

compelling reasons for relief because the convictions supporting his career offender status

remain valid predicate controlled substance offenses. We discern no error in this

conclusion. Given that Pittman’s only proffered extraordinary and compelling reason for

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6679 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/09/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

his relief is clearly without merit, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial

of relief.

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