Richard Donnell Rudisill appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. “We review the scope of a district courts sentencing authority under the First Step Act de novo.” United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 671 (4th Cir. 2020). When a sentence reduction is permitted, we review for abuse of discretion the district courts decision to grant or deny the motion. See United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2019). After determining that a sentence reduction is both permitted and warranted, the district court must recalculate the defendants Guidelines range before imposing a new sentence. Chambers, 956 F.3d at 672. The court must also provide a reasonable explanation of its decision to grant or deny relief, and consider evidence of post-sentencing conduct in reaching that decision. United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 412 (4th Cir. 2021).
We have reviewed the record and the district courts decision and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’ judgment. United States v. Rudisill, No. 1:01-cr-00048-MR-WCM-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2021). 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.