UNITED STATES v. SLADE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-03No. No. 20-7226

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the sentence reduction motion, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Slade's 235-month sentence remained appropriate.

Kevin Myell Slade sought to reduce his 235-month prison sentence under a provision of the First Step Act of 2018 that allows courts to modify sentences in certain circumstances. The district court reviewed his request and determined that his sentence remained appropriate based on factors including his criminal history, conduct while under supervision, and actions following sentencing.

On appeal, Slade argued that the district court failed to properly weigh the legal factors required in sentencing decisions and that the court should have given more consideration to certain mitigating circumstances. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the district court. Because Congress delegated the decision whether to grant sentence reductions under the First Step Act to the discretion of district judges, the appellate court rejected Slade's arguments and upheld the original sentence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in denying First Step Act sentence reduction
Proper application of sentencing factors in evaluating sentence reduction requests
Standard of review for discretionary sentence reduction decisions

Procedural posture

Slade appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Kevin Myell Slade appeals from the district courts order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Webb, 5 F.4th 495, 498 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that decision whether to grant sentence reduction under FSA 2018 “is entrusted to the district courts discretion” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court recognized its discretion to reduce Slades sentence, considered Slades arguments and the nature of his offense conduct and his characteristics—including his criminal history, performance on supervision, and his post-sentencing conduct—and determined that his 235-month prison sentence remained appropriate. We reject as without merit Slades appellate arguments seeking substantive reasonableness review and asserting that the district court erred by failing to properly balance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and afford greater weight to certain factors when reviewing his history and characteristics. See United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 355, 358, 360 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 674-75 (4th Cir. 2020). We therefore affirm the district courts order. United States v Slade, No. 4:08-cr-00003-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2020).

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.