Ward v. United States - Appeal of Compassionate Release Denial

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of David Clarence Ward's motion for compassionate release. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion, which cited extraordinary and compelling reasons and considered sentencing factors.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of David Clarence Ward's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the district court had previously considered similar arguments and determined that Ward did not meet the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" standard, while also weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court's order denying the motion was issued in September 2025.

This decision means that David Clarence Ward will not be granted compassionate release at this time. For legal professionals and criminal defendants, this case reiterates the standards for compassionate release motions and the appellate review process. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, but it reflects the court's application of existing legal standards to such motions.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6858 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID CL ARENCE WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Western District of No rth Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Jud ge. (1:02 - cr - 00063 -MR-1) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER a nd QUATTL EBAUM, Circuit Jud ges, and FLOYD, Senior Circu it Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Clarence Ward, Appellant Pro S e. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: David Clarence Ward appeals the district co urt’s order denying his most recent 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for comp assionate release. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of Ward’s motion. United States v. Burleig h, 145 F.4th 541, 548 - 49 (4th Cir. 202 5) (discussing standard of review and standards for its application). Specifically, the appealed - from order, which was issued in September 2025, incorporated by reference the court’s March 2023 or der in which the court considered many of the same arguments that Ward advanced in the subject motion and denied relief after (a) ruling that Ward did not satisfy the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); and (b) considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, we affirm the d istrict court’s order. United Sta tes v. Ward, No. 1:02 - cr - 00063 -MR- 1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2025). We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED