Gregory Edward Mitchum appeals the district courts denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”). On appeal, Mitchum argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its rejection of his nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. We affirm.
We review a district courts First Step Act proceedings for procedural and substantive reasonableness. United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 358-60 (4th Cir. 2021). Procedural reasonableness requires the district court “to consider a defendants arguments, give individual consideration to the defendants characteristics in light of the § 3553(a) factors, determine—following the Fair Sentencing Act—whether a given sentence remains appropriate in light of those factors, and adequately explain that decision.” Id. at 360. In explaining his decision, the district court judge “need only ‘set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.’ ” United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 409 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018)). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court considered Mitchums arguments in mitigation and adequately explained its conclusion that, in light of all the relevant factors, a reduction to Mitchums sentence was not warranted.
We therefore affirm the district courts order. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.