Opinion
21-6543
06-06-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL L. SPENCE, a/k/a Daniel L. Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 20, 2022
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)
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.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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).