United States v. Quentin Gentry

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-2794

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Quentin Lamare Gentry

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: March 25, 2026 Filed: April 14, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Quentin Gentry appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court found that Gentry

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

was eligible for a reduction in his sentence but, after considering the severity of the underlying offense and concerns for public safety, concluded that a reduction was not warranted. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination that the relevant sentencing factors continued to support the original sentence imposed. See United States v. Boyd, 819 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (district court’s decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________