Opinion
20-7110
07-27-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE EDWARD MITCHUM, Defendant-Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 15, 2021
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)
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.
Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
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.