United States v. Christopher Park

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-7311
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LOUIS PARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00028-JPB-JPM-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Louis Park, Appellant Pro Se. Clayton John Reid, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Louis Park appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence reduction. * “We review a district court’s

decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of

discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.”

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our review of the record reveals

no error. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Park’s sentence, but the court

declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Park’s motion to amend

his informal brief. 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

* Park’s motion to amend his informal brief indicates that he mistakenly believes this appeal is a direct appeal of his conviction or resentencing. However, the subject of this appeal is the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines and his purportedly successful rehabilitation.