United States of America v. Russell Dwayne Gause, a/k/a Rut

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7057
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUSSELL DWAYNE GAUSE, a/k/a Rut,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00058-SAL-2)
Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025
Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Dwayne Gause, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Russell Dwayne Gause appeals the district court’s order denying him a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 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 whether to
reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must first determine whether the
individual is eligible for a reduction and, if so, 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 policies relevant at
step one 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 Gause 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. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
decision, we affirm the court’s order. United States v. Gause, No. 4:22-cr-00058-SAL-2
(D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2024). 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 --