United States v. Boyd, No. 15-1473 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. After Amendment 782 to the Guidelines retroactively lowered the base offense level for this offense, defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence. The district court determined that defendant was eligible for a discretionary reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), but denied the motion because the court believed that a reduction of defendant’s sentence would present a risk of danger to the community. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion based on defendant's prison conduct violations. The court affirmed because the district court's explanation was more than sufficient to allow the court to meaningfully review how its substantial sentencing discretion was exercised.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for an Amendment 782 sentence reduction based on its conclusion that a reduction of the sentence, in light of defendant's post-sentencing misconduct, would present a risk of danger to the community.
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.