US v. Marquita Meredith, No. 21-6763 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUITA LEIGH MEREDITH, a/k/a Baby Girl,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: November 30, 2021 Decided: December 9, 2021 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marquita Leigh Meredith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marquita Leigh Meredith appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release, as well as the court’s orders denying reconsideration of this ruling. Before seeking compassionate release in the district court, an inmate must satisfy the threshold requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). However, as we recently held, this requirement is nonjurisdictional and, thus, subject to forfeiture or waiver if not timely raised. See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court sua sponte raised the threshold requirement and denied Meredith’s compassionate release motion on the basis that she did not satisfy it. In light of our ruling in Muhammad, we hold that the district court erred in so denying Meredith’s motion. * See id. at 130. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s initial, dispositive order and remand for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED We offer no criticism of the district court, which did not have the benefit of our ruling in Muhammad when it reached this conclusion. * 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.