US v. Mark Watkins - Sentence Modification Denial Affirmed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 23rd, 2026

Detected February 24th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Mark Watkins' motion for sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court found no reversible error in the lower court's decision.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court's order denying Mark Watkins' motion for sentence modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors, thus denying Watkins' pending motion and upholding the district court's decision in case number 5:94-cr-00066-JPB-1.

This decision means that Mark Watkins' sentence modification request has been definitively denied at the appellate level. As this is an unpublished opinion, it does not set binding precedent for future cases. The primary implication is for the individual involved, Mark Watkins, whose sentence remains as originally imposed. There are no new compliance obligations or deadlines for regulated entities arising from this specific court action.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 60 71 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK WATKIN S, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:94 - cr - 00066 - JPB -1) Submitted: January 7, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER an d FLOYD, Se nior Circ uit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Mark Watkins appeals the district court’s order d enying his motion for sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. According ly, we deny his pending motion an d affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Watkins, No. 5:94 - cr - 00066 - JPB -1 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 6, 2025). We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials befo re this court and argument w ould not aid the d ecisional process. AFFIRMED