Antoine Gause appeals the district courts order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Gause argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because it did so without addressing in its order his arguments grounded in the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and regarding his rehabilitation. Gause also argues that the district court misunderstood the record in the case because it characterized the 120-month prison sentence he was serving as a sentence at the statutory maximum and asserts that this characterization likely infected its consideration of his motion.
We review a district courts denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). To commit an abuse of discretion, “a district court must act arbitrarily or irrationally, fail to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, rely on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commit an error of law.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release in Gauses case and reject as without merit Gauses argument that the courts characterization of his prison term likely infected its consideration of his motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order. United States v. Gause, No. 7:16-cr-00123-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2020). See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that district court need not expressly address each of the movants arguments but must provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review of its decision).
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.