UNITED STATES v. PEREZ (2020)

Edwin Perez appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We “review the scope of a district court's sentencing authority under the First Step Act de novo.” United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 671 (4th Cir. 2020). Even if a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, whether to grant a reduction is within the discretion of the court. United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2019); see § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). While the court recognized that it had the authority to reduce Perez's sentence, it denied a reduction as a matter of discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

The district court was provided with Perez's reduced recalculated Sentencing Guidelines range. Perez asserted that he was entitled to a reduced sentence due to his postconviction conduct. While the court took note of Perez's postconviction attempts to improve himself, such as receiving his GED, taking classes, and participating in reentry programs, the court also considered Perez's conviction for assaulting a correctional officer and his extensive history of prison infractions, some of which involved assaults. The court denied Perez's motion for a sentence reduction after finding that Perez remained a danger to society and that the need for deterrence, to promote respect for the law, and to protect the public outweighed any mitigating factors. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion.

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.