United States v. Humberto Rivera-Moreno

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 22, 2025
Docket24-1969
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Humberto Rivera-Moreno (United States v. Humberto Rivera-Moreno) 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. Humberto Rivera-Moreno, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1969 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Humberto Rivera-Moreno, also known as Beto, also known as Erik Moctezuma, also known as Erik Moctezuma-Espindola, also known as Eduardo Rivera-Moreno, also known as Jose Chavez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________

Submitted: January 14, 2025 Filed: January 22, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Humberto Rivera-Moreno appeals after the district court1 denied his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not give any weight--much less significant weight--to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Tollefson, 853 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing district court’s decision whether to grant eligible defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Denton, 821 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Granados, 830 F.3d 840, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (district court has substantial latitude to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and does not abuse its discretion by denying § 3582(c)(2) motion after weighing aggravating factors more heavily than post-sentencing rehabilitation); United States v. Boyd, 819 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (post-sentencing prison violations were “clearly relevant” to district court’s exercise of its discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

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

Related

United States v. James Boyd
819 F.3d 1054 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Eddie Denton
821 F.3d 1012 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Sergio Javier Granados
830 F.3d 840 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Bruce Charles Tollefson
853 F.3d 481 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Humberto Rivera-Moreno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-humberto-rivera-moreno-ca8-2025.