United States of America v. Luis Enrrique Arroyo-Jimenez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6482
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS ENRRIQUE ARROYO-JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00048-D-2)
Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis Enrrique Arroyo-Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Luis Arroyo-Jimenez appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We review the denial of a motion under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019). In considering a motion for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must first determine whether the
movant is eligible for a reduction and the extent of the reduction authorized. Id. The court
must then “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether,
in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the [Guidelines] policies . . . is
warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Here, the district court found that
Arroyo-Jimenez was eligible for a sentence reduction but declined to exercise its discretion
to reduce his sentence based on its assessment of the § 3553(a) factors. We discern no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s 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

-- 2 of 2 --