Opinion
21-7446
01-25-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD LARUE SPIVEY, a/k/a Buddy, Defendant-Appellant.
Reginald Larue Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 20, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington, (7:03-cr-00023-D-1) James C. Dever III, District Judge.
Reginald Larue Spivey, Appellant Pro Se.
David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Reginald Larue Spivey appeals from the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion. See United States v. Webb, 5 F.4th 495, 498 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review).
The district court recognized that Spivey's sentences on counts 1 and 3 qualified for reduction under the FSA 2018; considered his arguments, the nature of his offense conduct, his characteristics-including his criminal history, performance on supervision, post-sentencing conduct, childhood, age, life expectancy, and family support-and the needs for his sentences to promote respect for the law, to deter others, and to protect the public by incapacitating him; and determined that reductions to his prison sentences from 360 to 324 months and to his supervised release terms from 10 years to 5 and 4 years were warranted. We reject as without merit Spivey's appellate argument that the district court erred in its recalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir. 2021). We therefore affirm the district court's order. United States v. Spivey, No. 7:03-cr-00023-D-1 (E.D. N.C. Oct. 7, 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