Court Opinion

ID: 9881765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:37.874722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.801287
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-7120

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARCELLUS JAMES FENNELL, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00077-D-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., 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, 5222. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did

        not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States,

        142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (explaining standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. United States v. Fennell, No. 7:08-cr-00077-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2020). *

        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

              This appeal was held in abeyance for United States v. Stokes, No. 20-6021, 2023
               *

        WL 5014095 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).

                                                    2