Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ontario RUSH-RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-1339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 21, 2013.
    Filed: Jan. 9, 2014.
    Craig Peyton Gaumer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael James Burdette, Burdette Law Firm, Clive, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Ontario Rush-Richardson, Lisbon, OH, pro se.
    Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Ontario Rush-Richardson appeals from an order of the district court denying him a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based upon certain amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines for offenses involving cocaine base. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). In declining to reduce Rush-Richardson’s sentence, the district court concluded (1) Rush-Richardson had already received “significant concessions” from the government as a result of his plea agreement, and (2) a sentence reduction would cause Rush-Richardson to receive inadequate punishment “for possessing three firearms in connection with his drug trafficking offense.” Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rush-Richardson a sentence reduction. See United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464, 466-67 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.