Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2429 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. George Corbett, also known as Little G lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids _ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: January 27, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. George Corbett appeals after the district court1
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2429 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. George Corbett, also known as Little G lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids _ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: January 27, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. George Corbett appeals after the district court1 d..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2429
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
George Corbett, also known as Little G
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: January 22, 2016
Filed: January 27, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
George Corbett appeals after the district court1 denied him a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In declining to reduce Corbett’s sentence, the district
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
court found that a reduction was not warranted in light of his lengthy criminal history,
the likelihood of recidivism, and the risk to public safety presented by his prison
conduct. 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) (§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce
sentence by applying amended Guidelines range as it if 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). The
judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.
______________________________
-2-