CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether the District Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence?
Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of five years, 25 years, and 25 years for the three firearms offenses. Defendant appealed. Where a non-retroactive change in the law could not support finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, the District court did not err in denying defendant’s motion.
Kelly, J., concurring: “. . . I would have voted to reverse and remand. In my view, sentence disparities such as those created by amendments to §924(c) are properly considered as part of an individualized assessment of whether extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction exist under the First Step Act.”
United States v. Taylor, 21-1627, per curiam. Appealed from United States District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.