United States v. Darnell Norton, No. 15-3927 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court adequately examined the sentencing factors and public safety concerns and explained its reasoning, and its denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) was not an abuse of the court's discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3927 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Darnell Michael Norton, also known as Dino lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2016 Filed: October 7, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Darnell Michael Norton appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction, as it adequately examined the sentencing factors and public safety concerns, and explained its reasoning. See United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of discretionary decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification); see also United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1103-05 (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. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
