United States v. Quasym Finch

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6162 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUASYM DIVAD JOHN FINCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00006-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025 Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quasym Divad John Finch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6162 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Quasym Divad John Finch appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions 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, Finch challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the § 3553(a) factors do not support his release. We discern no abuse of discretion. The district court adequately addressed Finch’s arguments and explained why it rejected those arguments. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the § 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 2