United States v. Matthew Mahone

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6156 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW J. MAHONE, a/k/a Matthew James Mahone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00027-MFU-1) Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025 Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew James Mahone, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6156 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Matthew Mahone 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, Mahone 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 Mahone’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