United States v. Deonte Spicer , 671 F. App'x 119 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEONTE SPICER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00046-IMK-MJA-1)
Submitted: November 28, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Deonte Spicer for assault with a
dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2012). The district court sentenced
Spicer to 70 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding
no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Spicer argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it held the victim of the offense in civil,
rather than criminal, contempt for refusing to testify without
valid grounds for his refusal. Because Spicer failed to object
to the district court’s order of contempt, we review this issue
for plain error. See In re Gates, 600 F.3d 333, 337 (4th Cir.
2010). Therefore, Spicer must demonstrate that (1) the district
court committed an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that the
error affected Spicer’s substantial rights. Id. Moreover, we
will not exercise our discretion to recognize such an error
unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and conclude that Spicer has failed to
demonstrate that the district court plainly erred.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3