United States v. Haynes, No. 19-1701 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order declining to impose a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The court rejected defendant's suggestion that the district court mistakenly deemed him ineligible because it focused on the wrong drug quantity in determining whether the statutory penalties for his offense were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. To the contrary, the district court properly rejected defendant's argument that he was entitled to a hearing and then acknowledged that the First Step Act vests discretion in the sentencing court to look at the facts and procedural history of each case when deciding whether to exercise discretion to reduce a sentence. In this case, the district court exercised discretion under the First Step Act, but determined that the existing sentence was appropriate.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Williams, District Judge] Criminal case -Sentencing. The record does not support defendant's argument that the court focused on the wrong drug quantity in deciding whether the statutory penalties for his crack offenses were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act; the court, in declining to exercise its discretion to modify the sentence, did not dispute defendant's contention that the Fair Sentencing Act modified his sentence and did not categorically state defendant was ineligible for a reduction.
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.