United States v. Danielle Ellis, No. 15-1106 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In ruling on defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence under Amendment 782, the court could not reduce the sentence below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range because the original sentence was not reduced below the original range based on substantial assistance. See Guidelines Sec. 1B1.10(b)(2).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1106 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Danielle Antoine Ellis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: June 29, 2015 Filed: July 2, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Danielle Ellis appeals after the district court1 reduced his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2010, Ellis pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. grams or more of cocaine base (crack). The district court varied from the thenapplicable range of 235-293 months and sentenced Ellis to 200 months in prison. In December 2014, pursuant to section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 (effective November 1, 2014), the district court sua sponte reduced Ellis’s prison sentence to 188 months, which was the bottom of the amended Guidelines range of 188-235 months. On appeal, Ellis argues that because the district court varied from the low end of the Guidelines range in imposing the original sentence, it should have reduced his sentence below the low end of the amended Guidelines range. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). The district court could not have reduced Ellis’s sentence below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, because the original sentence was not reduced below the original range based on substantial assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) (extent of Guidelines reduction is limited to bottom of amended Guidelines range, unless defendant received lower sentence due to substantial assistance); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (§ 1B1.10(b)(2) confines extent of reduction authorized under § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Logan, 710 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) reduction may not be to term below minimum of amended Guidelines range unless sentence being reduced was below then-applicable range pursuant to substantial-assistance motion). The judgment is affirmed and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
