United States v. William Davis, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7328 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-D-1)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Parks Newby, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7328 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it “acts arbitrarily or

irrationally, . . . fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of

discretion, . . . relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or . . . commits an error of

law.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After

reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding they did not support

granting Davis’ motion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Davis’

pending motions. 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