US v. Marquita Meredith, No. 22-6615 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6615 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUITA LEIGH MEREDITH, a/k/a Baby Girl, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00061-RBS-RJK1) Submitted: October 24, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marquita Leigh Meredith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In March 2021, the district court denied Marquita Leigh Meredith’s motion for compassionate release for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. In light of our decision in United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2021), we vacated that judgment and remanded for further proceedings, see United States v. Meredith, No. 216763, 2021 WL 5851066 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2021). On remand, the court ruled that Meredith failed to the satisfy the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and further found, in the alternative, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. The court thus denied Meredith’s motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s alternate ruling that the totality of the circumstances in this case, evaluated in light of the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not warrant the grant of compassionate release or a sentence reduction. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Meredith, No. 4:19-cr00061-RBS-RJK-1 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2022). We grant Meredith’s motion to supplement her informal brief. 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.
