United States v. Quentin Gentry

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-2099

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Quentin Lamare Gentry

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: July 7, 2025 Filed: July 21, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Quentin Gentry appeals after the district court denied his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court’s denial of relief does not contain sufficient explanation of its reasoning to allow this court to conduct a meaningful review. See United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court need not give lengthy explanations of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

2

or categorically rehearse the relevant factors in a § 3582 proceeding, but some statement of the district court’s reasoning is necessary for this court to be able to meaningfully review the decision). Therefore, we vacate the denial and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

______________________________