United States v. Jordan, No. 16-4165 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by denying defendant's request for a third level of reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(b) where he did not make a sufficiently specific objection to the government withholding the reduction; bad faith was not a basis for the district court to order the government to file a section 3E1.1(b) motion; the government's sole reason for not moving for the third point reduction -- that it had to prepare for a contested sentencing hearing -- was not unconstitutional and was rationally related to a legitimate government interest; and defendant's denial of relevant conduct did not allow the government and the district court to allocate their resources efficiently.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see U.S. v. Jordan, 812 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2016). Defendant failed to make a sufficiently specific objection to the government's refusal to move for a third-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(b), and the issue would be reviewed for plain error; bad faith is not a basis for the district court to order the government to file a Sec. 3E1.1(b) motion; government's reason for refusing to move for the reduction - that it had to prepare for contested sentencing hearing - was not unconstitutional and was rationally related to an interest identified in the Section; defendant's denial of relevant conduct did not allow the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently, and this was a an appropriate ground upon which to refuse to move for the third point. Judge Kelly, concurring in the result.
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.