US v. William Spruill, No. 12-4386 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4386 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM WALTER SPRUILL, a/k/a Pooh Pot, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00033-H-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Walter Spruill appeals his eighty-seven month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006); possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006); possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006); and possession of a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9), 924 (2006). Spruill s sole argument on appeal substantively is that his sentence is unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness, to ensure an abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. discretion standard of review. 38, 51 (2007). using The first step in this review requires the court that the procedural error. (4th Cir. 2008). district court committed no significant United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61 If, and only if, this court finds the sentence procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 United States v. Spruill reasonableness eighty-seven raises of his month no challenge sentence. sentence, We which to thus was the procedural presume at the that the bottom of See United States v. Spruill s Guidelines range, is reasonable. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [W]e may and do treat on appeal a district court s decision to impose a sentence within reasonable. ). the Guidelines range as presumptively Although Spruill asserts that he should have been sentenced below his Guidelines range, we conclude that the district court properly exercised Spruill s arguments in mitigation. its discretion to reject See Evans, 526 F.3d at 162 (recognizing that deference to a district court s sentence is required because the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case ). Because Spruill has failed to rebut the presumption this court affords his within-Guidelines sentence, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
