Christopher Williams appeals the district courts denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. Initially, the district court concluded that Williams was ineligible for resentencing. Williams appealed, correctly arguing that he is eligible for resentencing. “ ‘That [Williams] is eligible for resentencing does not mean he is entitled to it,’ however.” United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789, 792 (6th Cir. 2019)). District courts have “broad discretion” in determining whether or not to grant a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. Id. On remand, after weighing the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court declined to exercise that discretion and denied Williamss motion.
We review a district courts denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion. See id. at 319. “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Williams has not shown that the district court based its decision on an error of law. Nor has he shown that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. In fact, Williams admits to many of the disciplinary infractions that the district court relied on when denying his motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.