NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. ERIK JOHNSON , aka Tank,

Appellan t
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court No. 2

- 01

- cr - 00538

- 002 ) District Judge: Honorable J ohn M. Vazquez

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on September 19 , 2022
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO , and FUENTES , Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed September 23, 2022 )

OPINION *

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge Erik Johnson, currently serving a 480

- month term of imprisonment for various federal drug convictions, moved to reduce his sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act. 1
The District Court held he was eligible for this discretionary relief but ultimately denied
his motion

. Johnson now appeals that decision, arguing the Court insufficiently explained
its decision and erred by fail ing to address two of his arguments : that a sentence reduction would not cause an unwarranted sentencing disparity and COVID

- 19 increased the
harshness of his sentence.
A d istrict c ourt considering whether to reduce a sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act “is not required to modify a sentence for any reason

. ” 2 Concepcion v. United
States , 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2402 (2022)

. Courts, though, must “ explain their decisions and demonstrate that they considered the parties’ [nonfrivolous] arguments ” even if they are not persuaded. Id. at 2404 ; see also id. 2396 . This explanation can be just a “ brief
statement of reasons , ” id. at 2404 , as the Court is not obligated to “ expressly rebut each argument , ” i d. ( quoting United States v. Maxwell , 991 F.3d 685, 69 4 (6th Cir. 2021) ).
I ndeed, it is free to “ dismiss arguments that it does not find compelling without a detailed explanation .” Id. Meanwhile, our review of the sufficiency of the Court’s explanation
should be deferential. Id.

1 We have twice before recited the facts underlying Johnson’s offenses. See United States v. Johnson , 89 F. App’x 781, 783

– 86 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Johnson , 745 F. App’x 464, 464

– 65 (3d Cir. 2018). 2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3582(c)(1)(B), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3

We are convinced the District Court provided a sufficient statement of reasons here.
Its well

- reasoned, seven

- page order recited the background of the underlying offense and summarized relevant post

- sentencing evi dence. In the analysis section, it explained that the nature and circumstances of Johnson’s offense (particularly the “atrocious violence that [he] engaged in during the [drug] conspiracy”) strongly counseled against granting his motion. Appx

. at 13. It also noted that the “need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities” weighed against Johnson’s request. Id. at 13

– 14. The Court acknowledged Johnson’s efforts at rehabilitation, but also thought some evidence suggested he lacked

remorse for his earlier conduct

. Id. at 14

– 15. To be sure, the Court did not “ expressly rebut each argument” and seemingly dismissed a few of Johnson’s “ arguments that it [did] not find compelling ”

— such as the
COVID

- 19 argument or the specific nuances of his unwarranted sentencing disparity argument

— “ without a detailed explanation .” Concepcion , 142 S. Ct. at 2404 (internal quotation marks omitted)

. But it explicitly noted it “reviewed the parties’ submissions” and “considered the motion” even if it did not give a line

- by

- line response to each reason Johnson offered for a sentence reduction. Appx. at 9 ; see also Maxwell , 991 F.3d at 693 (noting the District Court pro vided a sufficient explanation for denying a First Step Act sentence reduction and “ did not need to explicitly address [the defendant’s] arguments that he would not be a danger to the community if released given his age and his health struggles ”)

. This is enough. Nothing in § 404 of the First Step Act “ compel [s] courts to exercise their discretion to reduce any sentence .” Concepcion , 142 S. Ct. at 2396. The Court declined to exercise4

that discretion here and provided an adequate reasoned explanation for doing so

. Thus we will affirm its judgment.