United States v. Daniel Binion, No. 20-1356 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Binion's First Step Act motion for a sentence reduction; the district court considered the 3553(a) factors before making its decision and that is more than enough.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1356 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Daniel Binion lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2020 Filed: November 12, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After considering a number of factors, the district court1 decided not to reduce Daniel Binion’s 293-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of grounds, we affirm. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act). The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Binion’s sentence, even if he was eligible. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). And the court did more than enough by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making a decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in reviewing a First Step Act motion, “a district court may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
