Opinion
21-6095
09-20-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISMALIUS JARON WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
Ismalius Jaron White, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 14, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00068-FL-1)
Ismalius Jaron White, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Ismalius Jaron White appeals the district court's order denying relief on his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court's decision to grant or deny a motion under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020). The court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors, or relies on erroneous factual or legal premises. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021).
On appeal, White disputes the district court's conclusion that a sentence reduction would not serve the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. However, the record reflects that the court thoroughly discussed and considered the § 3553(a) factors and reasonably concluded that a sentence reduction was inappropriate in light of White's characteristics, history, offense conduct, and post-sentencing conduct. We therefore conclude that the court acted within its discretion in denying White's motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order and deny White's motion for appointment of counsel. 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