UNITED STATES v. MCCAIN (2020)

Stephon Junior McCain appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. McCain was convicted in 2006 of possession with intent to distribute approximately 65 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and sentenced as a career offender to 288 months’ imprisonment, followed by a 10-year term of supervised release.

We review a district court's ruling on a motion for sentence reduction for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495-96 (4th Cir. 2020) (observing that “the decision whether to grant a reduction is entrusted to the district court's discretion”); United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2019) (“Congress left the decision as to whether to grant a sentence reduction to the district court's discretion.”). Section 3582(c)(1)(B)—“the appropriate vehicle for a First Step Act motion,” Wirsing, 943 F.3d at 183—permits modification of a previously imposed sentence “to the extent ․ expressly permitted by statute,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2018). The First Step Act authorizes, but does not require, a district court to impose a reduced sentence for defendants convicted of covered offenses as if certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, §§ 2-3, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372, were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. First Step Act, § 404(b), (c), 132 Stat. at 5222.

The district court observed that McCain's conviction qualified as a covered offense and reduced McCain's supervised release term to eight years. However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to reduce McCain's custodial sentence, noting that it had considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018), McCain's lack of a disciplinary record in prison, the parties’ arguments, and McCain's extensive criminal history. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce the term of imprisonment, 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.