United States v. Thomas Finley, No. 15-2601 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2). [ January 11, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2601 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Thomas Harry Finley lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: December 24, 2015 Filed: January 12, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Finley appeals after the District Court1 denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2011, Finley pleaded guilty to conspiring 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. to distribute 100 or more grams of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); 846. In a written, nonbinding plea agreement, the parties stipulated that one individual had died as a result of using heroin distributed by Finley and that a 6-level upward departure to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines base-offense level was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 (permitting a sentence above the authorized range “[i]f death resulted”). The District Court imposed a 14-level upward departure under § 5K2.1 based on evidence that two victims had died as a result of using heroin that Finley distributed; calculated a Guidelines range of 210–262 months; and sentenced Finley to 262 months in prison. In March 2015, the District Court sua sponte considered the applicability of Guidelines Amendment 782 (lowering by 2 levels certain baseoffense levels for drug offenses) to Finley’s case and declined to reduce the sentence. The court indicated that it would have imposed the same sentence even with the 2-level reduction in base-offense level. On appeal, Finley argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d 973, 974 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (standard of review). We affirm the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny as moot Finley’s motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ -2-
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.
