United States of America v. Mark Alan Scarborough

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6696
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00043-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Alan Scarborough, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Alan Scarborough appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for compassionate release, pursuant to 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. A district
court may grant a motion for compassionate release after concluding that the defendant has
shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release and that release is
appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Brown, 78
F.4th 122, 128 (4th Cir. 2023). We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for
compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831
(4th Cir. 2022). Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s determination that the pertinent § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting relief.
See id. (“[E]ven if a movant satisfies the threshold eligibility requirement for obtaining
[compassionate release], a district court has discretion to grant or deny relief based on its
assessment of the salient § 3553(a) factors.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. United States v. Scarborough, No. 1:12-cr-00043-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2024).
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 --