United States v. Darnell Norton


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4372835-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Joseph Herrold. [4456682] [15-3927]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3927 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Darnell Michael Norton, also known as Dino lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2016 Filed: October 7, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 15-3927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Entry ID: 4456682 Darnell Michael Norton appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction, as it adequately examined the sentencing factors and public safety concerns, and explained its reasoning. See United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of discretionary decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification); see also United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1103-05 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) due to defendant's criminal history). The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- Appellate Case: 15-3927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Entry ID: 4456682

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?