USCA4 Appeal: 24-6696 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00043-TDS-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Alan Scarborough, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6696 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Alan Scarborough appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

for compassionate release, pursuant to

(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the

First Step Act of 2018,

(b)(1),

, 5239. A district

court may grant a motion for compassionate release after concluding that the defendant has

shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release and that release is

appropriate under the

(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Brown,

(4th Cir. 2023). We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for

compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022). Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s determination that the pertinent § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting relief.

See id. (“[E]ven if a movant satisfies the threshold eligibility requirement for obtaining

[compassionate release], a district court has discretion to grant or deny relief based on its

assessment of the salient § 3553(a) factors.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order. United States v. Scarborough, No. 1:12-cr-00043-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2024).

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