United States v. Travis Eaton, No. 15-2874 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2). [ February 04, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2874 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Travis James Eaton lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: February 2, 2016 Filed: February 5, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Travis James Eaton appeals after the district court1 denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In declining to reduce Mr. Eaton’s sentence, 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. the district court found that a reduction was not warranted in light of his lengthy criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism. We conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as the district court’s finding that a reduction was not warranted was not an abuse of discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce sentence by applying amended Guidelines range as if it were in effect at time of original sentencing, and leaving all other Guidelines determinations intact as previously determined); United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes modification, and abuse-of-discretion review of decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification); United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 110305 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) due to defendant’s criminal history). The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
