United States v. Kevin Schimerowski, No. 18-2795 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Bowman, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a sentence reduction under section 3582(c) based on its determination that it would have imposed the same sentence, even without the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, in light of defendant's extensive criminal history and the other 3533(a) factors. [ April 12, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2795 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin Gene Schimerowski lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: April 10, 2019 Filed: April 15, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Schimerowski, who pleaded guilty pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and was sentenced in accordance with that plea agreement, appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His motion was based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and relied on Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (clarifying that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements do not foreclose eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief based on retroactively lowered Guidelines ranges). Schimerowski’s appointed counsel has filed a brief suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in denying a sentence reduction. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schimerowski a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). The district court concluded that it would have imposed the same prison term, even without the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, in light of Schimerowski’s extensive criminal history, as well as other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Hughes, 138 S. Ct. at 1778 (if district court concludes that it would have imposed same sentence even if defendant had been subject to lower Guidelines range, then court retains discretion to deny relief under § 3582(c)(2)); cf. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court is not required to give lengthy explanation of § 3553(a) factors in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, but must give some explanation for its decision). Accordingly, we affirm. In addition, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, now retired. -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.
