United States v. Tarik Freitekh

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7116 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TARIK FREITEKH, a/k/a Tareq Freitekh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00435-FDW-DCK-2)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tarik Freitekh, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy Raymond Sanders, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7116 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tarik Freitekh appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

On appeal, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against reducing his sentence. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion.

United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019). If, 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).

Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

decision. The district court judge—who had initially sentenced Freitekh only two years

earlier—determined that despite Freitekh’s reduced Guidelines range and his rehabilitative

conduct, a sentence reduction was not warranted in light of the seriousness of Freitekh’s

fraud offenses and a recent disciplinary infraction. We conclude that the district court

considered and reasonably weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors.

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