UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN DELGADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00164-RBS-JEB-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Delgado, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Delgado appeals from the district court order
denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant
whose Guidelines sentencing range has been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193,
195 (4th Cir. 2013). Whether to grant such a reduction is
within the district court’s discretion, so long as it considers
the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), to the
extent applicable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d
at 195. The court is not required to grant a reduction,
however. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir.
2010).
We review a district court’s decision whether to grant a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). In so doing, we may
not substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but
instead consider whether the court’s exercise of discretion was
arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286,
1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
Our review of the record demonstrates that the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Delgado’s motion. The court
clearly understood its authority to reduce Delgado’s sentence
2
pursuant to the crack cocaine Guidelines amendment but declined
to do so based on its careful review of the facts and
circumstances of Delgado’s case. See United States v. Jeffery,
631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (“district courts have
extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be
given each of the § 3553(a) factors”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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