United States v. Deshaun Spruill

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-6503
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6503 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESHAUN ENTREA SPRUILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00075-D-4)

Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026

Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deshaun Entrea Spruill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6503 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Deshaun Entrea Spruill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. The district court concluded

that, even assuming Spruill had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for

compassionate release, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors continued to weigh heavily against

modifying his sentence. On appeal, Spruill questions whether the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. We affirm.

We review the denial of compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing

so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed

the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its

discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]n abuse of discretion is when the

district judge is fundamentally wrong, not when [this court] disagree[s] with the district

court’s judgment.” United States v. Washington, 161 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2025)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id. “Importantly, district courts

enjoy broad discretion in analyzing the § 3553(a) factors when deciding a § 3582(c)(1)(A)

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6503 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

motion.” United States v. Burleigh, 145 F.4th 541, 548 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation modified).

“It is significant—and weighs against finding an abuse of discretion—when the same judge

who sentenced the defendant rules on the compassionate release motion.” United States v.

Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

On appeal, Spruill challenges the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a)

factors did not support a modified sentence. We conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in determining that, assuming extraordinary and compelling reasons

existed, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a reduction to Spruill’s

sentence because of the nature of the offense, the need to incapacitate Spruill, and the need

to protect society. The court also acknowledged and appropriately considered Spruill’s

arguments.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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