NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 19-3971

__________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. PAUL SURINE, Appellant

___________________ _________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 4- 07-cr-00304-001) District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

___________________ _________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 24, 2020

______________

Before: McKEE, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 24, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

* This disposition is not an op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 McKEE, Circuit Judge. Paul Surine appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for a sentencing hearing and sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act. 1 We will affirm the District Court’s denial substantia lly for the reasons set forth by the District Court in its thorough and carefully consider ed Memorandum Opinion, dated December 9, 2019, with only modest elaboration. 2
We review a motion for a reduced sentence for abuse of discretion. 3 In United
States v. Easter , we held that when considering a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act, the District Court “mus t consider all of the §3553(a) factors to the extent they are applicable.” 4 We explained that the District Court “need simply acknowledge it has considered the § 3553(a) factors.” 5 Here, it is evident from the Court’s Memorandum Opinion that it did much more than acknowledge its consideration of those factors. The Court carefully discusse d the application of those factors to Surine and explained why Surine’s background did no t suggest that an additional reduction of sentence was warranted under the First Step Act. 6 The Court explained, [D]espite Surine’s apparent remorse for his crimes, given his lengthy and serious criminal history, as well as hi s history of mainta ining, using, and discharging firearms in the presence of others when upset, the Court finds Surine as being at a high risk of re cidivism, and finds that there is a

1 Pub. L. No. 115-391, §404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). 2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3582(c)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3 See United States v. Easter , 975 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2020). 4 Id. at 326. 5 Id

. 6 Surine’s sentence was reduced in 2015 to 291 months pu rsuant to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.3 significant need for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public from further crimes of Surine. 7 Although we are not unsympathe tic to Surine’s argument that his advanced age counsels in favor of a reduced sentence, the District C ourt specifically consid ered Surine’s age and explained why that factor—when viewed in context with Surine’s history and conduct— did not persuade the Court th at an additional reduction in sentence was required or appropriate. Nothing in this re cord suggests that was an abuse of the Court’s very broad discretion. “[W]hile a district court may impo se a reduced sentence, it is not required to do so.” 8 We appreciate that this case is somewhat unique because it was assigned to Judge Brann after Judge McClure passed away. Judge Brann refused to grant a hearing on Surine’s motion and never saw him or persona lly heard from him. Surine argues that was an abuse of discretion. Although we recogniz e that the circumstances here are unusual, we held in Easter that the defendant is not entitled to a plenary resentencing hearing for a motion for a reduced sentence pu rsuant to the First Step Act. 9 Moreover, we have found no precedent that would require Judge Brann to hold a hear ing under the circumstances here, and Surine points us to none. Rath er, Judge Brann retained the discretion to determine whether a hearing was necessary or may have been helpful to him in ruling on Surine’s motion. It is clear that Judge Bran n meaningfully and caref ully considered the circumstances of Surine’s offense conduct as well as his background and character and

7 App. 12-13. 8 See, e.g., Easter , 975 F.3d at 327 (internal quota tion marks and citation omitted). 9 Id. at 326.4 concluded that he (Judge Brann) had enough information to decide whether a sentencing reduction under the First Step Act was appropriate. We are convinced that he did not abuse his discretion in doing so. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s decision.