USCA4 Appeal: 24-6835 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD LARUE SPIVEY, a/k/a Buddy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Washington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00023-D-1)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Larue Spivey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6835 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Reginald Larue Spivey appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release and his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Spivey’s motions for compassionate release. See United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653-55, 657-59, 661 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard of review, addressing determinations district court must make to grant relief, and addressing parameters governing district court’s consideration of factors raised for relief). We also find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Spivey’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, which sought a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendments 706, 750, and 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Because Spivey was sentenced as a career offender under the Guidelines, these Amendments did not lower his applicable Guidelines range, and he therefore is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). We thus affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Spivey, No. 7:03-cr-00023-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2024). 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