US v. Spencer Peter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00186-REP-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999380887].. [14-6023]

Appeal: 14-6023

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SPENCER PETERS, a/k/a Smoke,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00186-REP-2)

Submitted:

June 19, 2014

Decided: June 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Peters, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6023

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Spencer

Peters

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a reduction
of sentence.
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

We need not address whether the district court erred in

finding

Peters

ineligible

for

a

sentence

Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

reduction

under

The district court

alternatively held that, even if Peters were eligible, it would
decline to grant such a reduction in view of “the nature and
extent

of

the

offense

conduct

and

defendant poses to the public.”
aspect

of

the

district

the

safety

risk

that

the

Peters does not challenge this

court’s

decision

on

appeal,

and

we

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the requested relief.

See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d

193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to
what extent is a matter within the court’s discretion.”)
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2