Michael Antrantrino Lee appeals the district courts order granting 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. Lee argues on appeal that the district court erred in calculating his new range under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
“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.
Upon review, we discern no error warranting reversal in the district courts application of the Guidelines. Accordingly, we grant Lees motion for leave to file his reply brief out of time and affirm the district courts judgment. United States v. Lee, No. 5:01-cr-00221-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2020). We deny Lees motions for abeyance, to appoint counsel, and to remand. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.