Court Opinion

ID: 9390133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:00:58.61661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.668071
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7301      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7301

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARQUIS LAROSA BUCKLEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00002-RBS-DEM-1)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                           Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marquis Larosa Buckley, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Comer Mozzi, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7301      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marquis Larosa Buckley appeals 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. We review the

        district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326,

        329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did

        not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding that

        they did not support Buckley’s release.

               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