United States v. Banks, No. 19-1750 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a reduced sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 from 55 years to 40 years in prison. The court held that the Act applies to offenses, not conduct. Because the statute of conviction in defendant's case required only proof that he conspired to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and the Act reduced the penalties for a 50-gram conspiracy, he is eligible for a reduction.
The court also held that, although the district court did not address defendant's argument regarding whether his sentence was based on post-sentence rehabilitation, resentencing was not warranted on this record. In this case, the district court implicitly rejected defendant's contention that earning a certificate in General Education Development, completing education and personal betterment courses, and other mitigating factors warranted a greater reduction. Furthermore, the district court concluded that a sentence within the advisory range was appropriate in light of several aggravating factors, and no further explanation was required.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - First Step Act. Determination that Banks was eligible for a reduction of sentence because the statutory maximum punishment for conspiring to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base was reduced from life imprisonment to forty years by the Fair Sentencing Act is affirmed. The government's argument that Banks was not eligible for a reduction because Banks was held accountable for 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base is foreclosed by this court's precedent that the First Step Act applies to offenses, not conduct. The district court did not abuse its discretion in not reducing the sentence further and in failing to consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation, his difficult childhood and any sentence disparity; and resentencing is not warranted on this record. A sentence within the advisory range was appropriate in light of the several aggravating factors.
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.