United States v. Nosuk Kim

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 28, 2024
• Docket: 24-6065
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6065 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NOSUK PAK KIM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. David J. Novak, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00052-DJN-LRL-1)

Submitted: June 25.2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nosuk Pak Kim, Appellant Pro Se. David McLean Coleman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6065 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Nosuk Kim appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a sentence reduction 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 a motion for a sentence

reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must first determine whether the movant is

eligible for a reduction and 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 Kim was

eligible for a sentence reduction but declined to exercise its discretion to reduce Kim’s

sentence based on its assessment of the § 3553(a) factors. We discern no abuse of

discretion in the district court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

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