United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 18-1255
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Derrick T. Seals

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: August 10, 2018
                              Filed: August 27, 2018
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Federal inmate Derrick Seals, who is serving a statutory mandatory minimum
sentence, directly appeals after the district court1 denied his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

      1
       The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
motion for a sentence reduction. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief, asserting that the district court erred by denying Seals’s motion
without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

       After careful consideration, see United States v. Long, 

, 763 (8th
Cir. 2014) (noting that a legal conclusion as to whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a
modification is reviewed de novo, and that a discretionary decision as to whether to
grant an authorized modification is reviewed for an abuse of discretion), we conclude
that Seals could not have obtained a sentence reduction because the district court had
already imposed a statutory minimum sentence, see United States v. Peters, 

, 907 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (concluding that a sentence reduction was not
authorized because the prisoner had received a statutory mandatory minimum
sentence). Consequently, no error occurred, and an evidentiary hearing could not
have made a difference.

      We thus affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________




                                         -2-