UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE EDWARD MITCHUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-01174-TLW-1)
Submitted: July 15, 2021 Decided: July 27, 2021
Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr.,
United States Attorney, Derek A. Shoemake, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Edward Mitchum appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,
132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”). On appeal, Mitchum argues that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its rejection of his nonfrivolous
arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. We affirm.
We review a district court’s First Step Act proceedings for procedural and
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 358-60 (4th Cir.
2021). Procedural reasonableness requires the district court “to consider a defendant’s
arguments, give individual consideration to the defendant’s characteristics in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors, determine—following the Fair Sentencing Act—whether a given
sentence remains appropriate in light of those factors, and adequately explain that
decision.” Id. at 360. In explaining his decision, the district court judge “need only ‘set
forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United
States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 409 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United
States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2018)). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court considered Mitchum’s arguments in mitigation and adequately explained its
conclusion that, in light of all the relevant factors, a reduction to Mitchum’s sentence was
not warranted.
2
We therefore 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
United States v. George Mitchum
Combined Opinion