United States v. Justin Eaton, No. 19-1798 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2)based on Amendment 801 to the Guidelines; because Amendment 801 is not listed in Guidelines Sec. 1B1.10(d), the district court correctly determined that Section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize a sentence reduction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1798 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Justin K. Eaton lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 18, 2019 Filed: December 23, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Justin Eaton appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 801 to the Sentencing 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Guidelines. Because Amendment 801 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), we agree with the district court that section 3582c)(2) does not authorize a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) (sentence-reduction authority under § 3582(c)(2) limited to amendments listed in subsection (d)); United States v. Koons, 850 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing retroactivity of sentence-reducing amendments), aff’d, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018). We also reject Eaton’s argument that non-retroactivity gives rise to a due process concern. See United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 2013). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
