USA v. Murray

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARQUICE A. MURRAY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:20-cr-00021
Judge Thomas M. Rose
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (DOC. NO. 39)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant Marquice A. Murray’s (“Murray”) Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (the “Motion”)1 (Doc. No. 39.) Murray is currently incarcerated at FCI
Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia, with a release date of October 12, 2036. (See FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS INMATE LOCATOR, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited November 17, 2025).) By
his present Motion, Murray moves the Court for appointment of counsel to assist him in exploring
any relief—namely, sentence-reduction—he may be entitled to under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
(Doc. No. 39 at PageID 224.) For reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Murray’s Motion.
The Supreme Court has unambiguously held that “the right to appointed counsel extends
to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). All
federal appellate courts, including the Sixth Circuit, agree that this rule extends to motions for
compassionate release: “[T]here is no constitutional (or statutory) right to appointed counsel in
1 Murray’s Motion is docketed as “Motion to Reduce Sentence; Motion for Counsel.” (See Doc. No. 39.) Based on
the contents of the Motion, it is clear Murray requests that the Court appoint him counsel to investigate and pursue
any potential claims he may have to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). (See id. at PageID 224.) The Motion does not
otherwise address what bases, if any, support a reduction in his sentence. (Id.) Thus, the Court limits its analysis to
Murray’s request for appointment of counsel.
Case: 3:20-cr-00021-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
§ 3582(c) proceedings.” United States v. Manso-Zamora, 991 F.3d 694, 696 (6th Cir. 2021).
However, “[a] district court has discretion, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), to appoint counsel
when ‘the interests of justice so require.’” United States v. Smith, No. 18-CR-00049, 2022 WL
1127116, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 15, 2022). In conducting this determination, courts are to consider
various factors, “including the nature of the case, whether the issues are legally or factually
complex, and the litigant’s ability to present the claims for relief to the court.” United States v.
Woods, No. 03-CR-069, 2020 WL 5805324, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2020) (citing Lavado v.
Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993)).
Here, the circumstances of this particular case do not justify court-appointed
representation. Although unclear, Murray seems to take issue with his criminal history
categorization as outlined in his Presentence Investigation Report (the “PSR”): “I was on parole
[and] probation when I was sentence[d] which gave me 2 additional points that put me [at] a[]
category F-6[.] [W]ithout those points I would’ve landed in E-5 so could you please appoint me
or provide [sic] me in the correct direction to see if I may get anytime off.”2 (Doc. No. 39 at PageID
224.) General, unfounded qualms with one’s criminal history point computation do not render this
case factually distinctive or complex by any means.3 Nor is the applicable law in seeking the
requested relief particularly complex. See United States v. Villarreal, No. 11-CR-00083-4, 2025
WL 818181, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 13, 2025) (“A compassionate-release request is not a
2 From what the Court can gather, Murray seems to oppose the following portion of his PSR: “Pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1(d), if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including
probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status, 2 points shall be added to the
criminal history score. Murray’s offense occurred between October 30, 2019 and December 30, 2019. Murray was on
PRC supervision for Burglary (Physical Harm) in Case No. 16CR2602 and on probation for Robbery (Physical Harm)
in Case No. 18CR3944/2 at the time of the commission of the counts of conviction. Therefore, 2 points are added to
the criminal history score.” (Doc. No. 30 at PageID 138.)
3 The Court finds it prudent to note Murray knowingly and voluntarily signed a plea agreement and was therefore
apprised of the terms of imprisonment associated with his convictions and any potential sentences he was to receive
at the time he signed the plea agreement. (See Doc. No. 27.)
Case: 3:20-cr-00021-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
particularly complex claim factually or legally.”). Finally, the Court has no cause to deduce Murray
is incapable of representing himself.4 Accordingly, the circumstances of Murray’s case do not
support court-appointed representation. If Murray wishes to pursue relief under § 3582(c), he may
either proceed pro se or retain counsel.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Murray’s Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief (Doc. No. 39.)
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, November 17, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 Murray obtained his GED on December 19, 2016. (See Doc. No. 30 at PageID 144.)
Case: 3:20-cr-00021-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>