UNITED STATES v. LEWIS (2020)

[Unpublished]

After considering a number of factors, the district court ¹ decided not to reduce Troyce Lewis's 240-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of grounds, we affirm.

On the merits, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act). The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Lewis's sentence, even if he was eligible. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). And the court did its job by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making its decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We also conclude that Lewis's remaining arguments lack merit. District courts are not required to hold a hearing on sentence-reduction motions, see United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 843–44 (8th Cir. 2019), and there has been no violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Nor was the new statutory-minimum sentence authorized by the First Step Act retroactively applicable to him. See § 401(c), 132 Stat. at 5221.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and deny his pending motion as moot.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.