UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ JUAREZ (2019)

Dario Gomez-Juarez appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant whose Sentencing Guidelines range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013). Whether to grant such a reduction is within the district court's discretion, so long as the court considers the applicable factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195. The court is not required to grant a reduction, even if the sentence the defendant received is above the amended Guidelines range. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).

We review a district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and a district court's ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). A district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Juarez's motion. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Gomez-Juarez's sentence and recognized Gomez-Juarez's post-sentencing conduct, but it declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.