United States of America v. Marcus Robert Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6175
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: June 28, 2022
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or
irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of
discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”
United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
omitted). After reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion. Therefore, 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 --