United States v. William Davis, Jr. ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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