United States v. Bobby Banks

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bobby Banks

501 F. App'x 606

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2013

Docket12-2253

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 501 F. App'x 606 (United States v. Bobby Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bobby Banks, 501 F. App'x 606 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Banks appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Banks was responsible for more than 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base, and thus that the amendment did not change his Guidelines range. See United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d 973, 974-75 (8th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (standard of review; district court may make new factual findings in considering § 3582(c)(2) motion, as long as they are consistent with original sentencing determination and supported by record). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Banks’s request for new counsel.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Banks appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Banks was responsible for more than 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base, and thus that the amendment did not change his Guidelines range. See United States v. Anderson, 707 F.3d 973, 974-75 (8th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (standard of review; district court may make new factual findings in considering § 3582(c)(2) motion, as long as they are consistent with original sentencing determination and supported by record). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Banks’s request for new counsel.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 F. App'x 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bobby-banks-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack