United States v. Shane Fells

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shane Fells appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a larger reduction in Fells’ sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full resen-tencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that district court is presumed, absent contrary indication, to have considered relevant factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Fells, No. 3:94-cr-00046-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, *272 2016). 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 Footnotes [*] Although the district court granted Fells’ motion and sentenced Fells within the reduced amended Guidelines range, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Fells.