United States of America v. William Douglas Spicer, a/k/a Primo

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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.

-- 2 of 2 --