Court Opinion

ID: 9405634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:39.328068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.262633
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6303      Doc: 5        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6303

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARVIN LUCIEN MADDICKS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:16-cr-00070-MSD-LRL-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marvin Lucien Maddicks, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6303      Doc: 5         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marvin Lucien Maddicks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. Maddicks also appeals the district court’s denial of his request for

        appointed counsel. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not

        abuse its discretion in ruling that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against

        compassionate release. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (explaining standard of review). We are also satisfied that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. See United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724,

        730 (4th Cir. 2000) (recognizing criminal defendant has no right to counsel in 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c) proceedings). 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