United States v. Robert Brown, II

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 25-6652
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6652 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEE BROWN, II, a/k/a Rob,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:18-cr-01101-BHH-2)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brown, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6652 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Brown, II, 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 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, Brown challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and argues that the court

considered only his presentence conduct in analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. We find no

abuse of discretion. The district court addressed Brown’s arguments that extraordinary and

compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why they failed to

meet the standard.

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 2