US v. Marcus Wiley, No. 21-6889 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6889 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS ANTWAN WILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00158-D-6) Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Antwan Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Antwan Wiley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 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. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review and outlining factors relevant to evaluation of compassionate-release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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
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.
