United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2339

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Wendell Raymone Jones

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: May 31, 2016

 Filed: August 30, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In August 2008, Wendell Raymone Jones fled from police who were

conducting a controlled buy of crack cocaine. During the ensuing chase, Jones drove

over 100 miles per hour, sideswiped an unmarked police car, threw crack cocaine out

his window, crashed into a moving car, and finally careened into a parked car. The

parked car jolted forward and severely injured two bystanders; one required a leg
amputation. Jones pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 or more

grams of crack cocaine, an offense triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of 120

months in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2009). In 2009, the district court1

enhanced Jones’s advisory guidelines range for his “reckless endangerment during

flight,” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, and imposed a 132-month sentence. The court emphasized

the “extreme danger” Jones created and the “terrible tragedy” he caused. 

In 2011, Jones moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

based upon Amendments 748 and 750 to the advisory guidelines. He requested a 12-

month reduction, recognizing that he was not eligible for a reduction below the 120-

month mandatory minimum in effect when he was sentenced. See United States v.

Moore, 734 F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2013); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1). The

district court denied the motion, ruling that Jones was eligible for a sentence

reduction but declining to grant relief. The original sentence was appropriate, the

court concluded, given “the high-speed chase, the endangerment of police officers,

and the severe injuries to bystanders.” Jones did not appeal that ruling. 

In May 2015, Jones brought this motion, again seeking a 12-month sentence

reduction under § 3582(c)(2), based upon Amendment 782 to the advisory guidelines. 

The district court again concluded Jones was eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief but

denied the motion for the same reasons:

[I]n deciding whether to exercise discretion to reduce Jones’ sentence,

the Court considers factors such as the nature and circumstances of

Jones’ offense. As wastrue in 2012, the circumstances ofJones’ offense

weigh against exercising discretion to reduce his sentence, particularly

the high-speed chase, the endangerment of police officers, and the

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

-2-
severe injuries to bystanders. In this Court’s judgment, a sentence of

132 months is just and fair under the totality of the circumstances.

Jones appeals thissecond denial of a 12-month sentence reduction, arguing the

district court abused its discretion because it “focused too heavily on the

circumstances of his offense,” which were “already taken into account” by the

reckless-flight enhancement, and “failed to give adequate attention to” mitigating

factors -- his post-conviction “progress toward rehabilitation” and the extent to which

the Sentencing Commission has reduced the guidelines range for his offense. The

parties agree Jones was eligible for a sentence reduction; we assume, without

deciding, they are correct. The government does not challenge our authority to

review the reasonableness of the district court’s § 3582(c)(2) ruling under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a) and Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). Compare United States

v. Bowers, 615 F.3d 715, 720-28 (6th Cir. 2010), with United States v. Dunn, 728

F.3d 1151, 1155-58 (9th Cir. 2013), and id. at 1160-63 (O’Scannlain, J, concurring).

Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a district court “may reduce” an eligible

defendant’s prison term. The grant of § 3582(c)(2) relief is discretionary. See Dillon,

560 U.S. at 827. In deciding whether to exercise this discretion, “a district court (i)

shall consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, (ii) shall consider the danger to any

person or the community that may be posed by a sentence reduction, and (iii) may

consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of

the term of imprisonment.” United States v. Boyd, 819 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir.

2016), quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). The court has “wide latitude”

in weighing those factors. United States v. Powers, No. 15-1671, 2016 WL 3671507,

at *2 (8th Cir. July 11, 2016).

Here, the district court concluded that a sentence reduction was not warranted

given Jones’s reckless behavior, the grave harm he caused, and his proven risk to the

public. In deciding whether to grant Jones a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, the

-3-
court did not abuse its discretion by reexamining the dangerous and harmful

circumstances that resulted in a reckless-flight enhancement of his initial guidelines

range. See Powers, 2016 WL 3671507, at *2. The court was aware of the mitigating

factors urged by Jones but chose to give more weight to aggravating factors. There

was no abuse of the district court’s substantial discretion. See United States v.

Hernandez-Marfil, No. 15-1595, 2016 WL 3176471, at *1 (8th Cir. June 7, 2016)

(standard of review).

The order of the district court dated June 8, 2015, is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-