United States v. Pernell Sellers

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6210 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6210 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PERNELL JEFFREY SELLERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00020-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025 Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pernell Jeffrey Sellers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6210 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Pernell Jeffrey Sellers 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 an 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). “To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). On appeal, Sellers challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the § 3553(a) factors did not support release. We discern no abuse of discretion. The district court adequately addressed Sellers’s arguments that his rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated and his age at the time of the offense warranted a reduction in his sentence and explained why it rejected his arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Sellers, No. 3:97-cr-00020-GMG-RWT-2 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 20, 2025). 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