UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7883
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: August 24, 2020 Decided: August 31, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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.
2
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
3