United States v. DeVaughn Lee , 638 F. App'x 555 ( 2016 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3218
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
DeVaughn Lee
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: March 14, 2016
Filed: March 17, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
DeVaughn Lee appeals after the district court1 denied him a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In declining to reduce Lee’s sentence, the district court
1
The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.
found that a reduction was not warranted in light of the conduct violations incurred
during his incarceration and his conduct during the offense. We conclude that there
is 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) (Section 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-