Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02874/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02874-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis James Eaton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2874

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Travis James Eaton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: February 2, 2016

Filed: February 5, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Travis James Eaton appeals after the district court denied him a sentence 1

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In declining to reduce Mr. Eaton’s sentence,

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-2874 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Entry ID: 4364026 
the district court found that a reduction was not warranted in light of his lengthy

criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism. We conclude that there is no basis

for reversal, as the district court’s finding that a reduction was not warranted was not

an abuse of discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)

(§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce sentence by applying amended

Guidelines range as if it were in effect at time of original sentencing, and leaving all

other Guidelines determinations intact as previously determined); United States v.

Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2)

authorizes modification, and abuse-of-discretion review of decision whether to grant

authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification); United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1103-

05 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce

defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) due to defendant’s criminal history). The

judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2874 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Entry ID: 4364026