United States of America v. Daniel L. Spence, a/k/a Daniel L. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel L. Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00034-GLR-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2022 Decided: June 6, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting United States Attorney, Jeffrey
Hann, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Spence appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.* We review a district court’s denial of
a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d
326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
Upon review of the arguments pressed by Spence on appeal in conjunction with the
underlying record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Spence’s motion. Specifically, it is clear from the court’s order
that the court considered both Spence’s arguments in favor of relief and the factors relevant
to the inquiry, and that the court had a reasoned basis for denying Spence’s motion. See
United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 171 (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that the district
court’s consideration of a defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments can be reflected “either
explicitly or implicitly” in the court’s order); United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91
(4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate
release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Spence,
No. 1:98-cr-00034-GLR-1 (D. Md. Apr. 6, 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
* We held this appeal in abeyance for this court’s decision in United States v.
Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189 (4th Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 2 --