United States v. Mark Haines

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6099 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6099 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK DANIEL HAINES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00019-JPB-1) Submitted: January 30, 2025 Decided: February 4, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Daniel Haines, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff Earl Parsons, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6099 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mark Daniel Haines 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * See United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653-55, 657-59, 661 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard of review, addressing determinations district court must make to grant relief, and addressing parameters governing district court’s consideration of factors raised for relief). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Haines, No. 3:11-cr-00019-JPB-1 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 17, 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 * Because the district court properly found that Haines did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief, the court’s failure to review his post- sentencing conduct and rehabilitation efforts was, at most, harmless error. 2