US v. Edwin Perez, No. 13-6750 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6750 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00124-REP-1) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin Perez appeals the district court s order denying his motion seeking § 3582(c)(2) a (2006). reduction This of court sentence reviews under the § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. 18 U.S.C. denial of a United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). A district court abuses its discretion if it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, if the Guidelines amendment is retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Nevertheless, whether to reduce the defendant s sentence lies within the discretion of the district court: required to reduce a defendant s The court is not sentence, even where current sentence is above the amended guidelines range. the United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). In determining whether to grant such a reduction, the district court must consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) Sentencing Commission. and the policy statements of the 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2); U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(i). 2 Included among these factors is the need § 3553(a)(2)(C); court may to USSG also § protect 1B1.10 consider the cmt. public. See 18 n.1(B)(ii). post-sentencing A conduct U.S.C. district of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the original term of imprisonment reduction. in determining whether to grant a sentence USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez, on the basis of public safety and to promote respect for the law, a reduction of sentence. court s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
