United States v. Stacy Threatt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 18, 2024
• Docket: 24-6263
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6263 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STACY ARTHANIEL THREATT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00417-FDW-1)

Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacy Arthaniel Threatt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6263 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Arthaniel Threatt appeals the district court’s order denying his second 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release, as amended and supplemented.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in determining that sentencing relief was not warranted. See United States v. Bethea, 54

F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, determinations district court

must make before granting motion, and guideposts for assessing whether district court has

abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Specifically, the court

accurately recounted Threatt’s arguments in favor of a reduction, explained its rationale

for rejecting those arguments, and alternatively denied relief based on the § 3553(a) factors

it deemed the most significant, to wit: the serious and violent nature of the underlying

criminal conduct and Threatt’s extensive criminal history.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Threatt, No. 3:06-

cr-00417-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2023). 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