United States v. Silas King

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-6100
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6100 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SILAS THOMAS KING,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 25-6100

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MOC-3; 3:01-cr-00211- MOC-1)

Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6100 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6100 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Silas Thomas King appeals the district court’s order denying without prejudice his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release for failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies before the warden of his facility. We review this issue de novo.

See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 127 (4th Cir. 2021) (addressing

administrative exhaustion requirement in compassionate release context as statutory

interpretation issue and reviewing de novo); see also Custis v. Davis, 851 F.3d 358, 361

(4th Cir. 2017) (“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust

available administrative remedies.”).

A “defendant may move for compassionate release after [he] has fully exhausted all

administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [Bureau of Prisons] to bring a motion on

[his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the

defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 268

(4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, King cites United

States v. Evans, 504 F. Supp. 3d 519, 527 (E.D. Va. 2020), in support of his claim that he

did not need to request the warden to bring a motion on his behalf because he sought only

to file a renewed motion for compassionate release. In Evans, the district court held that

the defendant did not need to begin anew the administrative exhaustion process for a

motion to reconsider because she had requested the warden to file a motion for her less

than six months prior. Id. King’s motion here is not a renewed motion; it is an entirely

new motion for compassionate release, and he has not satisfied either of the routes required

for review before the district court. See Ferguson, 55 F.4th at 268.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6100 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

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