Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06520/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamatavous Regtez Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAMATAVOUS REGTEZ COLLINS, a/k/a Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-SAL-3)

Submitted: December 9, 2024 Decided: December 17, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jenny D. Smith, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States 

Attorney, Christopher D. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamatavous Regtez Collins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court determined that 

Collins had not presented extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate 

release; and even if his reasons were extraordinary and compelling, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors weighed against release. On appeal, Collins acknowledges that the court considered 

his asserted reasons for release but argues that it erred by not considering them collectively 

and that its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was also insufficient. We affirm.

“Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, a court generally may not modify a sentence ‘once 

it has been imposed.’” United States v. Melvin, 105 F.4th 620, 623 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “But a district court may reduce a sentence through a motion for 

compassionate release.” United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). We review the denial of a compassionate release motion 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. “Under this standard, ‘this Court may not substitute its 

judgment for that of the district court.’” United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 832 (4th 

Cir. 2022). We review a district court’s interpretation of the scope of § 3582(c)(1)(A) de 

novo. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine: 

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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. 

“The factors applicable to the determination of what circumstances can constitute 

an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison are complex and not easily 

summarized.” United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 197 (4th Cir. 2022). “[T]he inquiry 

is multifaceted and must take into account the totality of the relevant circumstances.” Id. 

at 198. “Even if a district court abuses its discretion in assessing whether the defendant 

presents extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, this Court may still affirm if the 

district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors was sound.” United States v. Davis, 

99 F.4th 647, 659 (4th Cir. 2024). Moreover, “district courts have extremely broad 

discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020). 

“[I]n the Fourth Circuit, when evaluating the sufficiency of a sentencing court’s 

explanation, there is a presumption that the district court sufficiently considered relevant 

factors in deciding a [compassionate release] motion.” Davis, 99 F.4th at 658 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “[T]he touchstone in assessing the sufficiency of the district 

court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court 

that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its

own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” 

Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 199 (internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We have reviewed the record and Collins’s appeal arguments, and we conclude that 

the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate 

release. The district court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally but rather followed statutory 

requirements, conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion, and reasonably 

determined that even if Collins’s asserted reasons were extraordinary and compelling, the 

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against his compassionate release or a sentence reduction.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6520 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 4 of 4