United States v. Moore — Fourth Circuit affirmed denial of a second compassionate-release motion

Case
United States of America v. Randolf Moore, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a Booney
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Judge
Paul V. Niemeyer (George H.W. Bush, 1990); Roger L. Gregory (Bill Clinton, 2000); William B. Traxler Jr. (William J. Clinton, 1998)
Date Decided
September 9, 2026
Docket No.
25-6822
Topics
Compassionate Release; Sentence Reduction; Criminal Appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Randolf Moore, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the Eastern District of North Carolina’s denial of his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). District Judge James C. Dever III had denied that motion on September 17, 2025.

The Fourth Circuit submitted the appeal for decision on August 28, 2026. The unpublished opinion does not describe Moore’s asserted grounds for release or the district court’s reasoning.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. After reviewing the record, the panel found no reversible error in the denial of Moore’s second compassionate-release motion.

The court cited the district court’s September 2025 order and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rutherford v. United States and Fernandez v. United States, but provided no further substantive analysis. It also dispensed with oral argument because the written materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fourth Circuit left intact the denial of Moore’s second request for compassionate release.
  • The panel identified no reversible error after reviewing the record.
  • The per curiam decision is unpublished and is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

Why It Matters

The decision resolves Moore’s appeal but offers little guidance for future compassionate-release litigation because it does not discuss his asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons, the applicable sentencing factors, or the district court’s analysis.

Its citations to Rutherford and Fernandez signal that those Supreme Court decisions informed the panel’s review, although the opinion does not explain how they applied to Moore’s motion.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top