United States v. Derrick Seals, No. 18-1255 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentence Reduction. Anders case. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under Sec. 3582(c)(2) as the court had already imposed the statutory minimum sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1255 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Derrick T. Seals lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 10, 2018 Filed: August 27, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Derrick Seals, who is serving a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, directly appeals after the district court1 denied his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. motion for a sentence reduction. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief, asserting that the district court erred by denying Seals’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. After careful consideration, see United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that a legal conclusion as to whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a modification is reviewed de novo, and that a discretionary decision as to whether to grant an authorized modification is reviewed for an abuse of discretion), we conclude that Seals could not have obtained a sentence reduction because the district court had already imposed a statutory minimum sentence, see United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (concluding that a sentence reduction was not authorized because the prisoner had received a statutory mandatory minimum sentence). Consequently, no error occurred, and an evidentiary hearing could not have made a difference. We thus affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion 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.
