United States of America v. Stephen Arthur Lacy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ARTHUR LACY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00040-MR-WCM-1)
Submitted: December 30, 2022 Decided: January 5, 2023
Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Arthur Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Arthur Lacy appeals the district court’s orders denying his third 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying relief on his addendum to
that motion. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release
motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.)
(stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lacy’s informal brief, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also
Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important
document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that
brief.”). The district court noted that it had previously denied Lacy’s earlier motions for
compassionate release raising substantially the same arguments as those presented in the
instant motion. Incorporating its earlier orders by reference, the court determined that its
prior analysis supported denying Lacy’s instant motion for compassionate release. We
conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial and did not
abuse its discretion in determining that, even in light of Lacy’s evidence of rehabilitation,
the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. See United
States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order denying
compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate
under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for
meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm the
district court’s orders.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --