United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1923

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Van Osten

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: February 29, 2016

 Filed: May 4, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Van Osten appeals the district court’s1

 denial of a sentence reduction

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.
I

In December 2004, Van Osten pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking

crime. At sentencing, the district court calculated a base offense level of 34 because

Van Osten was responsible for at least 1.5 kilograms but less than 5 kilograms of a

mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2005). For the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine

count, the district court calculated a guideline range of 135 to 168 months and

sentenced Van Osten to 160 months’ imprisonment. For the possession of a firearm

in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime count, the district court sentenced Van Osten

to a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment.

On November 1, 2014, Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) took effect. This amendment, colloquially referred to as the

“Drugs Minus Two” Amendment, lowered by two the offense level based on drug

quantity under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11 and made this two-level reduction

retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (2014).

After Amendment 782 took effect, the district court, sua sponte, scheduled a

hearing to determine whether Van Osten was eligible for a sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). At the hearing, the district court

recalculated a base offense level of 31 and a guideline range of 108 to 135 months for

the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine count. The district court weighed the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and declined to reduce Van Osten’s sentence, finding the

mitigating factors did not outweigh the significant amount of methamphetamine Van

Osten distributed, the number of firearms he possessed, his problems on pretrial

release, and the fact that he fled to Malta prior to his guilty plea. Van Osten timely

appealed.

-2-
II

18 U.S.C § 3582 does not entitle a defendant to a sentencing reduction. United

States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 764 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 991 (2015). 

Rather, it gives the district court discretion to reduce a defendant’s sentence if his

sentencing range has subsequently been lowered and the reduction is consistent with

the § 3553(a) factors and applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review a district court’s decision to deny

a sentence reduction for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d

973, 974 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

Van Osten argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied his

request for a reduction in his sentence because it gave undue weight to aggravating

factors. We disagree. “The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a)

factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining

an appropriate sentence . . . .” United States v. Samaniego-Garcia, 758 F.3d 1007,

1008 (8th Cir. 2014). Here, the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and noted

Van Osten had a low criminal history and had made changes to his life since he

entered prison. But it found the aggravating factors – Van Osten’s possession of a

large quantity of methamphetamine, his possession of a number of guns, and his act

of fleeing to Malta – outweighed the mitigating factors. This decision was not an

abuse of discretion.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-