United States v. Troyce Lewis, No. 20-1196 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for First Step Act relief as the court performed the required two-step analysis of defendant's motion and considered the statutory sentencing factors under Section 3553(a) before making its decision. See U.S. v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1196 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Troyce Allen Lewis lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: August 17, 2020 Filed: August 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After considering a number of factors, the district court 1 decided not to reduce Troyce Lewis’s 240-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of grounds, we affirm. On the merits, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act). The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Lewis’s sentence, even if he was eligible. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). And the court did its job by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making its decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We also conclude that Lewis’s remaining arguments lack merit. District courts are not required to hold a hearing on sentence-reduction motions, see United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 843–44 (8th Cir. 2019), and there has been no violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Nor was the new statutory-minimum sentence authorized by the First Step Act retroactively applicable to him. See § 401(c), 132 Stat. at 5221. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and deny his pending motion as moot. ______________________________ -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.
