Court Opinion

ID: 9382259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:17.272585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.275681
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7328      Doc: 28         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7328

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-D-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Parks Newby, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7328         Doc: 28        Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

        abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it “acts arbitrarily or

        irrationally, . . . fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of

        discretion, . . . relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or . . . commits an error of

        law.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After

        reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding they did not support

        granting Davis’ motion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Davis’

        pending motions. 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

                                                       2