United States v. Pablo Carrillo, No. 17-2889 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 without holding a hearing; defendant's pro se issues are rejected as they are unrelated to his sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2889 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Pablo J. Carrillo, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2018 Filed: April 30, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Pablo Carrillo appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782, 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. which lowered the base offense levels for certain drug offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has submitted a brief arguing that the district court erred in denying Carrillo’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Carrillo has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the legality and reasonableness of his sentence. We conclude the district court did not err in denying Carrillo’s motion without holding a hearing. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009). Next, we reject Carrillo’s pro se challenges to his sentence, because section 3582(c)(2) confers jurisdiction only to determine whether a sentence should be reduced due to a retroactive Guidelines amendment, not for unrelated challenges to the sentence. See United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1271-72 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
