United States v. Rodney Hill
United States v. Rodney Hill
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 19-1829 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rodney Phillip Hill
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________
Submitted: December 6, 2019 Filed: December 11, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________
Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Hill appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He has also moved for leave to proceed pro se, and his attorney has asked to withdraw.
We conclude that Hill was ineligible for relief because his pre- and post- Amendment Guidelines ranges were the same. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (providing that a court may reduce a term of imprisonment that is based on “a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Baylor, 556 F.3d 672, 673 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (holding that a district court lacks the authority to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) if the relevant amendment does not lower the applicable Guidelines range). We accordingly affirm the judgment, grant his attorney permission to withdraw, and deny Hill’s motion. ______________________________
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished