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)
21-6889•United States of America v. Marcus Antwan Wiley
21-6889Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.05.2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6889
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ANTWAN WILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00158-D-6)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Antwan Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers,
Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Antwan Wiley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon review of the
record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review
and outlining factors relevant to evaluation of compassionate-release motions), cert.
denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir.
2021) (affirming district court’s 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.