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)
21-6805•United States of America v. Marion Mays
21-6805Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit22.10.2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6805
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARION MAYS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: October 22, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marion Mays appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying compassionate release
in this case. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard
of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming
district court order denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was
both rational and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently
explained its denial to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mays, No. 1:03-
cr-00726-MBS-1 (D.S.C. May 14, 2021). 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.