United States v. Tracy Yost, No. 17-2510 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court stated in its order denying defendant's Amendment 801 motion for a sentence reduction that even if it gave the Amendment retroactive effect, it would decline to modify defendant's sentence because - for the reasons stated at the sentencing proceedings - it viewed the sentence was appropriate in light of the 3553(a) factors; for this reason, the order denying the motion is affirmed. [ November 29, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2510 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tracy J. Yost lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2017 Filed: November 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Tracy Yost appeals the district court’s1 order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence modification based on Amendment 801 to the Guidelines. 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Having reviewed the record, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s statement in footnote 4 of its order, which indicated that even if Amendment 801 were to be given retroactive effect, the court would decline to modify Yost’s sentence, because--consistent with the court’s explanation at the time of Yost’s sentencing--the court viewed the sentence as appropriate after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (setting forth circumstances under which court may reduce defendant’s prison term); see also Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court may affirm on any basis supported by record); cf. United States v. Hansen, 859 F.3d 576, 577-78 (8th Cir. 2017) (on direct appeal, affirming sentence that was inconsistent with Amendment 801; concluding that any error would have been harmless in light of district court’s explanation of sentence imposed). We express no opinion as to the other aspects of the district court’s order. The denial of relief is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
