Court Opinion

ID: 9555131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 21:00:35.276886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:29.474448
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6312      Doc: 13         Filed: 08/09/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6312

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARCUS ANTONIO MCNEILL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00188-FL-1)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: August 9, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcus Antonio McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6312       Doc: 13          Filed: 08/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcus Antonio McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

        sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132

        Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district

        court did not abuse its discretion, see United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir.

        2023) (stating standard of review), by declining to sua sponte consider the changes the First

        Step Act wrought on 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), see United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 184 (4th

        Cir. 2023) (providing standard for consideration of First Step Act motions); Reed, 58 F.4th

        at 822 (recognizing that “a district court is not required to modify a sentence for any reason”

        (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we deny McNeill’s motion for appointment of counsel and

        affirm the district court’s order.    United States v. McNeill, No. 5:08-cr-00188-FL-1

        (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2021). 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