United States v. William Spicer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: 24-6210
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6210 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM DOUGLAS SPICER, a/k/a Primo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00119-FL-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2024 Decided: June 10, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Douglas Spicer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6210 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Douglas Spicer, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s February 8,

2024, order denying his third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 1 Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

concluding that Spicer was not entitled to compassionate release. 2 See United States v.

Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining standard of review); Brodziak v.

Runyon, 145 F.3d 194, 196 (4th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that a decision “within the

discretion of the [district] court should be affirmed even though we might have exercised

that discretion quite differently”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United

States v. Spicer, No. 7:16-cr-00119-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2024). 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

1 In the same order, the district court also denied Spicer’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Spicer does not mention his § 2255 motion in his informal brief, so he has forfeited appellate review of that aspect of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). 2 We agree with the district court that Spicer’s evidence of rehabilitation is impressive, and he should be commended for his significant efforts to better himself while incarcerated.