Court Opinion

ID: 4467030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-23 17:00:25.887475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:45.739732
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 19-1798
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                    Justin K. Eaton

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: December 18, 2019
                             Filed: December 23, 2019
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Justin Eaton appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion to reduce his
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 801 to the Sentencing

      1
      The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
Guidelines. Because Amendment 801 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), we agree
with the district court that section 3582c)(2) does not authorize a sentence reduction.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) (sentence-reduction authority under § 3582(c)(2) limited
to amendments listed in subsection (d)); United States v. Koons, 850 F.3d 973, 976
(8th Cir. 2017) (discussing retroactivity of sentence-reducing amendments), aff’d,
138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018). We also reject Eaton’s argument that non-retroactivity gives
rise to a due process concern. See United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464, 469 (8th
Cir. 2013).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-