UNITED STATES v. ALSTON (2020)

Thomas Grandville Alston appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2018) motion for a sentence reduction. The court found Alston eligible for a reduction but exercised its discretion to deny his motion. Although the district court incorrectly stated that the Government opposed relief, the court otherwise accurately described the record; considered Alston's new Sentencing Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors, and Alston's arguments for a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying the motion. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alston's motion and affirm the court's judgment. See United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard). 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.