UNITED STATES v. GADSON (2021)

Timothy Gadson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. While we review the district court's decision to grant or deny a motion under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion, United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020), we presume that the “district court sufficiently considered [the] relevant factors” in making its decision, United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 410 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the district court addressed Gadson's mitigating arguments and explained why a reduction was nonetheless inappropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that Gadson has failed to rebut the presumption that the court sufficiently considered the relevant 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.