Full text
United States v. Lamatavous Collins
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6520
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMATAVOUS REGTEZ COLLINS, a/k/a Red,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-SAL-3)
Submitted: December 9, 2024 Decided: December 17, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jenny D. Smith, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Christopher D. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Lamatavous Regtez Collins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court determined that
Collins had not presented extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate
release; and even if his reasons were extraordinary and compelling, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors weighed against release. On appeal, Collins acknowledges that the court considered
his asserted reasons for release but argues that it erred by not considering them collectively
and that its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was also insufficient. We affirm.
“Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a court generally may not modify a sentence ‘once
it has been imposed.’” United States v. Melvin, 105 F.4th 620, 623 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “But a district court may reduce a sentence through a motion for
compassionate release.” United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). We review the denial of a compassionate release motion 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. “Under this standard, ‘this Court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the district court.’” United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 832 (4th
Cir. 2022). We review a district court’s interpretation of the scope of § 3582(c)(1)(A) de
novo. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).
“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:
(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that *3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
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.
“The factors applicable to the determination of what circumstances can constitute
an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison are complex and not easily
summarized.” United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 197 (4th Cir. 2022). “[T]he inquiry
is multifaceted and must take into account the totality of the relevant circumstances.” Id.
at 198. “Even if a district court abuses its discretion in assessing whether the defendant
presents extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, this Court may still affirm if the
district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was sound.” United States v. Davis,
99 F.4th 647, 659 (4th Cir. 2024). Moreover, “district courts have extremely broad
discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020).
“[I]n the Fourth Circuit, when evaluating the sufficiency of a sentencing court’s
explanation, there is a presumption that the district court sufficiently considered relevant
factors in deciding a [compassionate release] motion.” Davis, 99 F.4th at 658 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[T]he touchstone in assessing the sufficiency of the district
court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court
that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its
own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.”
Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted). *4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 4 of 4
We have reviewed the record and Collins’s appeal arguments, and we conclude that
the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate
release. The district court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally but rather followed statutory
requirements, conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion, and reasonably
determined that even if Collins’s asserted reasons were extraordinary and compelling, the
§ 3553(a) factors weighed against his compassionate release or a sentence reduction.
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.