US v. Marcus Parham, No. 21-6284 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-KDB-DCK-2) Submitted: December 9, 2022 Decided: December 16, 2022 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Megan C. Hoffman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, Joshua B. Carpenter, Appellate Chief, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ashville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Dwayne Parham appeals the district court’s order granting in part 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 (“First Step Act”). The court concluded that Parham was eligible for relief under the First Step Act and exercised its discretion to reduce Parham’s sentence, but not as low as requested by Parham. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extent of the sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.