USCA4 Appeal: 24-6380 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6380

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON JAMONT BLACKWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00629-TDS-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Jamont Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6380 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Jamont Blackwell appeals the district court’s order denying him a

sentence reduction under

(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,

(4th Cir. 2019). In considering

whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must first determine

whether the prisoner 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,

(2010).

Here, the district court found that Blackwell 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. Blackwell, No. 1:19-cr-00629-

TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Apr. 4, 2024 & entered Apr. 5, 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