United States of America v. Mark Daniel Haines

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK DANIEL HAINES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00019-JPB-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2025 Decided: February 4, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Daniel Haines, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff Earl Parsons, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Daniel Haines 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. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error.* See United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653-55,
657-59, 661 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard of review, addressing determinations district
court must make to grant relief, and addressing parameters governing district court’s
consideration of factors raised for relief). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Haines, No. 3:11-cr-00019-JPB-1 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 17, 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
* Because the district court properly found that Haines did not demonstrate
extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief, the court’s failure to review his post-
sentencing conduct and rehabilitation efforts was, at most, harmless error.

-- 2 of 2 --