United States v. Courtney Boyd

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6222 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3) Submitted: January 28, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Courtney Omar Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Courtney Omar Boyd 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 a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moody, 115 F.4th 304, 310 (4th Cir. 2024). “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.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (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, Boyd challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court addressed each of Boyd’s arguments for his release and specifically explained why they failed to amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons. Furthermore, because the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that Boyd failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons, we reject his contention that the court erred by declining to address the § 3553(a) factors. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6222 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 3 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 3