[Unpublished]
After considering a number of factors, the district court
1
decided not to reduce Charles Millers 360-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of grounds, we affirm.
We conclude that the district court gave a reasoned basis for its decision and did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act); United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2019) (explaining that the sentencing court must have considered the parties’ arguments and have a reasoned basis for its decision). The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Millers sentence, even if he was eligible. § 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.”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
PER CURIAM.