UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7124

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KIERON MATTHEW WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00596-GLR-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: August 18, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Agee dissents.

Kieron Matthew Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7124 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Kieron Matthew Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal, he 

asserts that the district court erred by failing to consider his medical conditions in the 

context of the COVID-19 pandemic and by failing to properly analyze the applicable

sentencing factors. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if “extraordinary 

and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Where, 

as here, the defendant—rather than the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)—files a compassionate 

release motion, the court is “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling 

reason for release that a defendant might raise” in deciding whether to grant the motion. 

United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “[I]f a court finds 

that a defendant has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons,” it must then 

“consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the extent that they are applicable 

in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the defendant’s term of 

imprisonment.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). 

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

discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 

383 (2021).

Here, the district court provided the following explanation for denying Williams’ 

motion for compassionate release:

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7124 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

The nature and circumstances of the offense are quite serious. Further, the 

defendant has a lengthy criminal history, including several robbery 

convictions. These factors manifest a need to protect the public.

The [BOP] is presently mitigating the risk of the spread of COVID-19. 

Finally, due to the defendant’s age and BOP’s management of defendant’s 

medical conditions, the [c]ourt is satisfied that the conditions of confinement 

do not mandate the relief sought by the defendant.

Although there is no “categorical . . . requirement” that a district court explicitly 

address each of the defendant’s arguments in support of his compassionate release motion, 

High, 997 F.3d at 187, a court’s explanation must “allow for meaningful appellate review” 

in light of the particular circumstances of the case, id. at 188 (internal quotation marks 

omitted); see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018) (explaining that 

“[j]ust how much of an explanation [is] require[d] . . . depends . . . upon the circumstances 

of the particular case”). When a case is “relative[ly] simpl[e],” this requirement is satisfied 

if the order denying relief shows that “the district court was aware of the arguments, 

considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive reason” for denying the 

motion. High, 997 F.3d at 191 (cleaned up); see Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 

2389, 2404-05 (2022). However, when a defendant “present[s] a ‘significant amount of 

post-sentencing mitigation evidence,’ . . . ‘a more robust and detailed explanation’ [is] 

required.” Id. at 190 (alterations omitted and quoting United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 

389, 396 (4th Cir. 2019)).

Here, we cannot discern whether the district court adequately considered Williams’ 

arguments related to the dangers he faced as a result of his medical conditions in the context 

of the COVID-19 pandemic. We similarly cannot discern whether the district court 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7124 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/18/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

considered the evidence of Williams’ rehabilitation over his six years of incarceration. 

Although it is “significant” that the judge who denied Williams’ compassionate release 

motion was the same judge who originally sentenced him, see High, 997 F.3d at 189, we 

nevertheless conclude that the evidence Williams submitted of his rehabilitation—which 

included a clean disciplinary record, drug abuse treatment, a variety of prison courses, and 

a correspondence course for becoming a certified legal assistant or paralegal upon his 

release—was sufficient to warrant a more robust explanation from the court. See Martin, 

916 F.3d at 396-97 (finding that recitation of original criminal behavior is insufficient when 

no weight is given to “the multitude of redemptive measures” taken by prisoner).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. We deny as moot Williams’ request for summary disposition 

of his appeal, and we express no opinion on the merits of Williams’ motion for 

compassionate release. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7124 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/18/2022 Pg: 4 of 4