United States v. Gurpreet Bajwa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-6319
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6319 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GURPREET SINGH BAJWA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00060-LMB-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2025 Decided: May 23, 2025

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gurpreet Singh Bajwa, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6319 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Gurpreet Singh Bajwa appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 821 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019). Where, as here, the

district court determines that the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, the court

must then “consider[ the] relevant [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] sentencing factors to determine

whether, in its discretion, a reduction is warranted in whole or in part under the particular

circumstances of the case.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 438 (4th Cir. 2016)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Bajwa’s sentence, but the court

exercised its discretion to deny a reduction based on its review of the § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Bajwa, No. 1:20-cr-

00060-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 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