United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2085

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eddie Louis Denton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: April 15, 2016

 Filed: May 3, 2016 

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Eddie Denton was serving a sentence of 324 months in prison after a jury

convicted him of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The district court

1

reduced his sentence to 294 months after an amendment to the sentencing guidelines

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

1

Northern District of Iowa.
lowered the advisory guideline range applicable to his offense of conviction. Denton

appeals, and we affirm.

In 2003 a jury convicted Denton of one count of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 860. He was

sentenced to life in prison. After Amendments 706 and 715 to the sentencing

guidelines lowered the guideline range applicable to his offense, the district court

reduced Denton'ssentence to 324 months, the bottomofthe amended guideline range.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Later after Amendment 782 was enacted and further

lowered the advisory guideline range applicable to Denton's offense, the district court

again reduced his sentence to 294 months in the middle of the amended guideline

range. Denton appeals, arguing that he should have received the maximum reduction

available.

We review the district court's sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) under an

abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir.

2010). A district court abuses its discretion when "it fails to consider a relevant and

significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or

considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing

those factors." United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008). In

deciding whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), a district court must

consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as the "nature and seriousness of

the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction ... and

it may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant." Burrell, 622 F.3d at

963–64 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Denton argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to grant

him the maximum reduction available as it had previously. He contends that this

shows the court weighed the relevant factors differently than it had before. We reject

this argument. The court's conclusion that a 294 month sentence was appropriate is

-2-
not inconsistent with its prior decision. Denton also argues that while reducing his

sentence, the district court failed to account for his advanced age and poor health. 

The record shows, however, that the district court expressly considered Denton's age,

health, and all other relevant factors in its decision. We therefore affirm the district

court's order.

______________________________

-3-