Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03968/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03968-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Shook
Appellant
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3968

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Kevin Shook

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: May 13, 2016

Filed: May 19, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Shook appeals after the district court1

 denied his motion for a sentence

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

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-3968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2016 Entry ID: 4400375 
district court found that a reduction was not warranted in light of his criminal history

and the circumstances of the offense. We see 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 request to

withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2016 Entry ID: 4400375