United States v. Booker, No. 19-2402 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's reduction of defendant's sentence to 277 months' imprisonment under the First Step Act. The court held that defendant's suggestion that the district court did not understand its First Step Act discretion is without merit where the district court expressly recognized and exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence. Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that the district court did not understand the scope of its discretion under the First Step Act. In determining the extent of the reduction, the district court placed emphasis on a proportional reduction based on defendant's advisory range under the current guidelines. Thus, the district court had a reasoned basis for its decision and did not abuse its substantial discretion.
The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court's summary procedure violated the "complete review" provision of Section 404(c) of the First Step Act and deprived defendant of Due Process. The court explained that defendant had notice of the district court's proposed action and an opportunity to respond before the district court issued an order adequately explaining the basis for its decision. There was no constitutional procedural obligation to do more.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Booker moved for a First Step Act reduction, and the court reduced his sentence from 380 months to 277 months; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining it would not grant Booker a even greater sentence reduction; Booker's arguments that the court's procedures in the case violated the First Step Act's "complete review" requirement or his due process rights rejected; Booker had notice and opportunity to respond and the court issued an order adequately explaining the basis for its decision - there is no constitutional obligation to do more.
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.