US v. Deonte Spicer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00046-IMK-MJA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999979662].. [16-4055]

Appeal: 16-4055

Doc: 44

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4055

Doc: 44

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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.
2010).

See In re Gates, 600 F.3d 333, 337 (4th Cir.

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.
will

not

exercise

our

discretion

to

Id.

recognize

Moreover, we
such

an

error

unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of the judicial proceedings.
reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

Id.

that

We have thoroughly

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

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-4055

Doc: 44

contentions

are

Filed: 12/02/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3