United States of America v. William Corbine, also known as William Tate Corbine

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1384
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
William Corbine, also known as William Tate Corbine,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: March 16, 2026
Filed: July 17, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2017, William Corbine pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an assault on
a federal officer and the discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of
violence. In 2024, Corbine moved for a sentence reduction based on an amendment
to the sentencing guidelines that reduced the number of criminal history points scored

-- 1 of 5 --

for defendants who commit an offense while serving any criminal justice sentence.
The district court* concluded Corbine was eligible for a reduction, but denied the
motion based on Corbine’s criminal history, the circumstances and seriousness of the
offense, and disciplinary violations that Corbine incurred while serving his current
sentence. Corbine appeals, and we affirm.
I.
When Corbine was sentenced in 2017, the district court calculated a total
criminal history score of ten points under the sentencing guidelines. The court scored
two points for commission of the offense while serving a criminal justice sentence.
See USSG § 4A1.1(d) (Nov. 2016). Corbine’s advisory guideline range for the
assault offense was 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment; the firearms offense carried a
mandatory consecutive sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The district court
sentenced Corbine to 60 months’ imprisonment for the assault offense and 120
months on the firearms offense, to be served consecutively.
In 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended USSG § 4A1.1 to eliminate the
provision adding two criminal history points for the commission of a federal offense
while under a criminal justice sentence. USSG App. C., Amend. 821. Under the
amended guideline, the court adds a single point if the defendant receives seven or
more criminal history points and committed the instant offense while under any
criminal justice sentence. Id. The Commission made this amendment retroactive.
USSG § 1B1.10(d), p.s., comment. (n.7).
Corbine moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on
the amendment to USSG § 4A1.1. He pointed out that if his sentence had been
*The Honorable Camela C. Theeler, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 5 --

calculated under the current guidelines, then his advisory range for the assault offense
would have been 41 to 51 months rather than 51 to 63 months. Corbine sought a
reduction in sentence from 60 months to 48 months on the assault offense. The
government agreed that Corbine was eligible for a reduction, but opposed the motion
on the ground that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Corbine’s
post-sentencing conduct did not support a reduction.
The district court denied the motion. The court determined that Corbine was
eligible for a reduction, but concluded that the original sentence was appropriate after
considering “all of Corbine’s conduct, including the seriousness of the instant
offenses and the issues he has had while in custody, along with the other 3553(a)
factors.”
On appeal, Corbine argues that the district court abused its discretion by
ignoring his rehabilitation efforts and giving undue weight to his history and
characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense of conviction, and his
post-sentencing conduct. A district court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Boyd, 835 F.3d 791, 792 (8th Cir.
2016).
II.
A district court must follow a two-step inquiry to determine whether a
defendant’s sentence should be reduced pursuant to a retroactive amendment to the
sentencing guidelines. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25 (2010). The
court first determines whether a defendant is eligible for a reduction under the
amended guidelines. Id. at 821. In the second step, the court may grant a reduction
within the amended guidelines range “if it determines that one is warranted” after
considering the applicable section 3553(a) factors. Id. at 822.
-3-

-- 3 of 5 --

The parties do not dispute that Corbine was eligible for a sentence reduction
under the amended USSG § 4A1.1(e). Once a district court has determined that a
defendant is eligible under step one, it has “substantial discretion” under step two in
deciding whether to reduce the sentence. United States v. Burnell, 2 F.4th 790, 792
(8th Cir. 2021). Corbine contends that the district court abused its discretion at step
two because it improperly weighed the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
First, Corbine contends the district court placed undue weight on his prior
criminal history and characteristics. The district court determined that Corbine’s
criminal history, including a prior conviction for burglary and possession of
controlled substances, supported denying his motion for a reduced sentence. Corbine
argues that his prior criminal history was already accounted for in his original
sentence, so the district court should not have considered his criminal history again
when reviewing his motion for a sentence reduction. But the guidelines instruct the
district court to consider the § 3553(a) factors, including “the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” when determining whether a sentence reduction is
warranted. See USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.1 (B)(i)). The district court has
wide latitude to weigh these factors, and there was no abuse of discretion in
considering Corbine’s criminal history as a factor that weighed against a reduction.
Second, Corbine argues the district court abused its discretion by placing undue
weight on the nature and circumstances of his offense. The district court determined
that the circumstances of the offense raised public safety concerns, because Corbine
directed his sister to fire a gun at an officer during a high-speed chase in a residential
area. The guidelines instruct the district court to consider “the nature and
circumstances of the offense” and the need for the sentence imposed “to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant.” See USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., comment.
(n.1 (B)(i)); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B). The district court raised legitimate
concerns about public safety, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the circumstances of the offense weighed in favor of a 60-month sentence.
-4-

-- 4 of 5 --

Third, Corbine contends that the district court placed undue weight on his post-
sentencing conduct. A court may consider a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct
when reviewing a motion for a sentence reduction. USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., comment.
(n.1(B)(iii)); United States v. Darden, 910 F.3d 1064, 1068 (8th Cir. 2018). The
court found that Corbine had taken some positive actions, including obtaining his
GED, but that he had been cited for possession of heroin, positive drug tests, assault
without a serious injury, and refusal to obey an order. In light of this record, the
district court did not abuse its discretion concluding that Corbine’s post-sentencing
conduct exhibited a continuing pattern of noncompliant behavior that militated
against a reduction in sentence.
Finally, Corbine argues the district court failed to give significant weight to his
post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. A district court may consider rehabilitation
evidence, but the court is not required to adjust a sentence based on such efforts.
United States v. Hernandez-Marfil, 825 F.3d 410, 412 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
The district court considered that “Corbine has taken some positive actions while in
custody,” but the court acted within its discretion to deny his motion despite these
efforts.
In light of all the relevant circumstances, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Corbine’s motion for a reduction in sentence. The order of the
district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-5-

-- 5 of 5 --