United States v. Omar Guerra

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6010 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OMAR GUERRA, a/k/a Potato, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00600-MGL-4) Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Guerra, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6010 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Omar Guerra appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ∗ After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerra’s motion for compassionate release. See United States v. Brown 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). The district court addressed Guerra’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why it rejected those arguments. The court also recognized Guerra’s positive postsentencing conduct but declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 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 ∗ Guerra also sought a sentence reduction pursuant to retroactive Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821. On appeal, he does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Amendment 821 claim and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 2