USA v. Gregory Donell Eatmon, No. 20-11845 (11th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 9, 2021.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-11845 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-11845 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREGORY DONELL EATMON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:08-cr-00133-RDP-HNJ-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-11845 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 20-11845 Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In 2019, Gregory Donell Eatmon, a federal prisoner, filed a motion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. Pertinent here, he requested an amended judgment reducing his term of imprisonment because of intervening changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion. The court found that Eatmon was eligible for a sentence reduction but declined to exercise its discretion based on Eatmon’s “extensive disciplinary record while in federal prison.” Doc. 57 at 2. 1 Eatmon appealed, and we affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded for further proceedings in light of its opinion in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). See Eatmon v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2899 (2022). Concepcion held that “the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step Act.” 142 S. Ct. at 2404. And, because district courts must “consider nonfrivolous arguments presented by the parties, the First Step Act requires district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise them.” Id. at 2396. Concepcion instructs that district courts ruling on First Step Act 1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 20-11845 20-11845 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 motions bear the “standard obligation to explain their decisions,” and accordingly must give a “brief statement of reasons” to “demonstrate that they considered the parties’ arguments.” Id. at 2404. Here, the district court failed to indicate that it considered or was permitted to consider intervening changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 2396, 2404. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further consideration in light of Concepcion. VACATED and REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
