Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
21-6284•United States of America v. Marcus Dwayne Parham
21-6284Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit16.12.2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6284
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-KDB-DCK-2)
Submitted: December 9, 2022 Decided: December 16, 2022
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Megan C. Hoffman, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, Joshua B. Carpenter, Appellate Chief,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ashville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Dwayne Parham appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion
for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,
132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”). The court concluded that Parham was eligible for
relief under the First Step Act and exercised its discretion to reduce Parham’s sentence, but
not as low as requested by Parham. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extent of the sentence reduction. See
Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.