United States of America v. Brady Austin Rogers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1302
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brady Austin Rogers
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: July 19, 2024
Filed: July 24, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brady Austin Rogers appeals the 92-month sentence the district court1
imposed after sua sponte granting a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 821. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Rogers’s counsel, who has moved for leave to withdraw, filed a brief arguing
that the district court erred by not varying downward from the amended Guidelines
range as it did at Rogers’s initial sentencing. In a pro se supplemental brief, Rogers
challenges the fairness of Amendment 821 as applied to defendants, such as himself,
who had no prior opportunity to provide substantial assistance to the government.
Upon careful review, this court finds no error in the sentence reduction the
district court granted. See United States v. Tollefson, 853 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir.
2017) (standard of review).
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . the court may reduce the
term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section
3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Accord United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d
740, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (noting § 3582(c)(2) requires that any reduction “be
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission”). Rogers’s reduced sentence fell at the bottom of the amended
Guidelines range. By the language in § 3582(c)(2), Congress limited the district
court’s discretion to grant a variance reducing Rogers’s sentence below what
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 allows. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (d)
(providing that any reduction may not be below amended Guidelines range unless
initial below-Guidelines sentence reflected defendant’s substantial assistance).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --