Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2261 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Jose Alonzo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo _ Submitted: January 24, 2018 Filed: January 29, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Antonio Jose Alonzo appeals from the district court’s1 order denying his mo
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2261 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Jose Alonzo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo _ Submitted: January 24, 2018 Filed: January 29, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Antonio Jose Alonzo appeals from the district court’s1 order denying his mot..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2261
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Antonio Jose Alonzo
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
____________
Submitted: January 24, 2018
Filed: January 29, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Jose Alonzo appeals from the district court’s1 order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Following de novo
1
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, then United States District Judge for the
District of North Dakota, now United States Circuit Judge.
review, we agree with the district court that Alonzo was ineligible for the requested
sentence reduction based on an amendment to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines because his original sentence was derived from the applicable statutory
minimum. See United States v. Moore,
734 F.3d 836, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2013). We
affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-