UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATHEW RYAN BYRD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00080-1)

Submitted: September 7, 2021 Decided: September 21, 2021

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick A. Mullin, THE LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK A. MULLIN, New York, New 

York, for Appellant. Lisa G. Johnston, Acting United States Attorney, Stephanie S. Taylor, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mathew Ryan Byrd appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which claimed that his medical 

conditions placed him at greater risk of serious infection from COVID-19. The district 

court found that he submitted insufficient evidence to show a particularized susceptibility 

to the virus or that the Bureau of Prisons was unresponsive to his medical needs, in order 

to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release. We affirm.

Ordinarily, “a sentencing court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has 

been imposed.’” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)). “Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if 

the ‘court . . . finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction’ 

and that the reduction is ‘consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission,’ and if the § 3553(a) sentencing factors merit a reduction.” 

United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 275 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)). While there is currently no policy statement applicable to compassionate 

release motions filed by defendants, “which means that district courts need not conform, 

under § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s consistency requirement, to § 1B1.13 in determining whether 

there exist ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a sentence reduction,” the policy 

statement applicable to BOP-filed motions “remains helpful guidance even when motions 

are filed by defendants.” McCoy, 981 F.3d at 282-83 & n.7; High, 997 F.3d at 186.

As we have explained, “[a]n inmate’s serious medical condition can be the basis” 

for finding “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to grant compassionate release; and
3

“COVID-19 raises medical issues in the prison context that are particularly serious.” High, 

997 F.3d at 185 (citing USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)). “The underlying arguments for 

release from prison based on the coronavirus pandemic depend at least on allegations that 

the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a prison is higher than the risk outside the prison and 

that the inmate’s preexisting medical condition increases that individual’s risk of 

experiencing a serious, or even fatal, case of COVID-19.” Id. “In a different way, actually 

contracting COVID-19 can also provide a compelling case for relief if coupled with a 

prison’s inability to address the condition and circumstances calling for compassion.” Id.

Elucidating the shape of qualifying medical conditions “is statutorily committed to 

the Sentencing Commission”; but “depending on the circumstances, an inmate might well 

be able to present an extraordinary and compelling reason for release based on COVID19.” Id. at 185. While the current version of USSG § 1B1.13 is only “applicable” to BOPmotions, “[o]ne might reasonably believe” its definitions of extraordinary and compelling 

medical conditions will also apply to defendant-filed motions. Id. at 186. “In any event, 

if a court finds that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons, it 

is still not required to grant the defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction.” Id.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); 

High, 997 F.3d at 185. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or 

irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of 

discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law. 

Kibble, 992 F.3d at 332; High, 997 F.3d at 187. When considering a defendant’s motion 
4

for compassionate release, a district court must “‘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.’” High, 

997 F.3d at 190 (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018)).

Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we review a district court’s factual findings 

for clear error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). “‘Under clearerror review, our task is to determine whether the district court’s account of the evidence 

is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.’” United States v. Patterson, 957 

F.3d 426, 435 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “‘This standard plainly does not entitle a 

reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it is convinced that 

it would have decided the case differently.’” Id. (citation omitted).

We have reviewed the record and find no clear error or abuse of discretion by the 

district court. After reviewing Byrd’s medical records and filings, the court found that they 

did “not indicate that Byrd is currently struggling with maintain[ing] his health or that the 

BOP is unresponsive to his needs.” Moreover, although the court was “not indifferent or 

unsympathetic to the risk COVID-19 presents to incarcerated individuals,” it found “that 

insufficient evidence has been submitted to support a finding that release is appropriate 

under these circumstances.” On appeal, Byrd fails to show any clear error in the court’s 

findings, and we conclude that the court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of 

the record viewed in its entirety. Moreover, the court properly considered both his risk 

from contracting COVID-19 and the prison’s ability to address his conditions in deciding 

that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting his release. 
5

We further conclude that Byrd has not shown that the court acted arbitrarily or irrationally, 

failed to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relied 

on erroneous factual or legal premises, or committed an error of law. 

Accordingly, we deny Byrd’s pending motions and affirm the district court’s order. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED