Most books I can recommend for some aspect of their writing - even if the whole ensemble falls short. Sadly, Three Days in April is one I can't recommend at all.
But let's rewind a little. Three Days in April is a fast-paced technological thriller set in a future Baltimore where government surveillance is everywhere (and they have a network of orbital kinetic energy weapons for when they stop merely watching), and a significant proportion of the populace are genetically modified, most along fairly standard models (the Pretties, for instance, or the Neanderthals).
The trouble starts when a plague runs through Hagerstown - and the government quickly starts wiping the public newsfeed of the disaster. Anders, a mouse-DNA'd-teaching-assistant is caught in the middle of the coverup, along with irritating hacker roommate Gary, and new-acquaintance-and-Neanderthal Terry, when Terry's sister is discovered to be trapped within the killzone. Then... things get weird.
It doesn't sound like a terrible premise, but the problem is in the execution. The plot, simply put, doesn't work. It's fast-paced, yes, but few of its developments are explained, nor do they have any meaningful foreshadowing, making the resolution seem like deus ex machina to an absurd degree. There are some interesting links, but unless I'm missing a great deal of the novel, it utterly fails to satisfy in this respect: it's a rollercoaster of meaningless twists. I was left wondering where the last twenty percent of the novel was. Our heroes were saved? How?
Even poor plots can survive scrutiny if they have sufficiently interesting characters to follow them, but Three Days in April fails to entertain in this respect either. None of the central three protagonists ever become more than caricatures: Anders seems to have little non plot-driven personality, and Gary seems to be intoxicated through most of it, barely developing beyond giggles. Terry comes closest to being interesting, with her relationship with her sister and her disliked partner, but still gets no development. Worse, the conversations between all involved read like laddish 'banter' - with the sexism that entails. This isn't limited to the dialogue, but also permeates the narrative - the 'Pretties' get a particularly heavy load, but the book as a whole reads as fairly male gaze-y