UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6750
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWIN PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00124-REP-1)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Perez appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). This court reviews the denial of a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). A district court
abuses its discretion if it relies on an erroneous factual or
legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify
the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced
. . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” if the Guidelines
amendment is retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Nevertheless, whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence lies
within the discretion of the district court: “The court is not
required to reduce a defendant’s sentence, even where the
current sentence is above the amended guidelines range.” United
States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).
In determining whether to grant such a reduction, the
district court must consider the sentencing factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and the policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2); U.S. Sentencing
Guideline Manual § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(i). Included among these
2
factors is the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(C); USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii). A district
court may also “consider post-sentencing conduct of the
defendant that occurred after imposition of the original term of
imprisonment” in determining whether to grant a sentence
reduction. USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).
Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez, on
the basis of public safety and to promote respect for the law, a
reduction of sentence. 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
3