USCA4 Appeal: 21-7446 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LARUE SPIVEY, a/k/a Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00023-D-1)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Larue Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7446 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Larue Spivey appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of
2018 (FSA 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
motion. See United States v. Webb, 5 F.4th 495, 498 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of
review).
The district court recognized that Spivey’s sentences on counts 1 and 3 qualified for
reduction under the FSA 2018; considered his arguments, the nature of his offense conduct,
his characteristics—including his criminal history, performance on supervision,
post-sentencing conduct, childhood, age, life expectancy, and family support—and the
needs for his sentences to promote respect for the law, to deter others, and to protect the
public by incapacitating him; and determined that reductions to his prison sentences from
360 to 324 months and to his supervised release terms from 10 years to 5 and 4 years were
warranted. We reject as without merit Spivey’s appellate argument that the district court
erred in its recalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Lancaster,
997 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2021). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Spivey, No. 7:03-cr-00023-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2021).
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
Loading…