United States v. Jose Sibrian Garcia

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6240 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE ALBERTO SIBRIAN GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00259-JKB-13) Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Alberto Sibrian Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6240 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jose Alberto Sibrian Garcia 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 18 U.S.C. § 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. (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. On appeal, Garcia 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 Garcia’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why they failed to meet the standard. The court also properly weighed the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that they did not counsel in favor of Garcia’s release. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6240 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025 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