United States of America v. Katrina Pauline Shangreaux, also known as Katrina White Whirlwind

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2208
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Katrina Pauline Shangreaux, also known as Katrina White Whirlwind
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: October 20, 2025
Filed: November 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Katrina Shangreaux’s two-and-a-half-year-old son died after she kicked him
in the head and abdomen, hit him with a belt, bit him, and injured his scrotum. She
pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a) and 1153, and was
sentenced to 480 months in prison, an upward variance from her 324- to 405-month

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Guidelines range. The district court1 denied Shangreaux’s motion for a reduced
sentence based on a retroactive change to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 821 (amending criminal history status points
calculation). It also denied her motion for reconsideration.
In both orders, the district court correctly applied the two-step analysis for
considering a motion to reduce a sentence based on a retroactive Guidelines change.
See United States v. Darden, 910 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2018) (describing the
two steps). First, it found Shangreaux was eligible for a reduction and calculated
her new Guideline range of 292 to 365 months in prison. Second, it applied the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and denied a sentence reduction. Shangreaux appeals on
both steps. See United States v. Tollefson, 853 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2017)
(reviewing eligibility de novo and reviewing decision to reduce for abuse of
discretion); see also United States v. Garrett, 103 F.4th 490, 499 (8th Cir. 2024)
(reviewing denial of motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion).
Shangreaux argues that the district court erred by finding her ineligible for a
sentence reduction. Having reviewed the district court’s orders, we are not
convinced. Both orders found Shangreaux eligible for a reduction under
Amendment 821. The court clearly stated in its original order that “Shangreaux
meets the criteria for . . . a reduction,” and in its order denying reconsideration that
“Shangreaux cleared the . . . analysis at step one.” True, the order denying
reconsideration says that Shangreaux “does not qualify for a sentence reduction
because the sentencing judge did not rely on the guidelines in arriving at her
sentence.” But that statement follows the court’s calculation of her new Guidelines
range, which would have been unnecessary if the court had found Shangreaux
ineligible. Viewed in context, the district court’s observation that “Shangreaux also
does not qualify for a sentence reduction” was part of its step two analysis. Cf.
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota. Shangreaux was sentenced by the Honorable Jeffrey L.
Viken, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota, now retired.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Darden, 910 F.3d at 1067 (a court’s reasons for not exercising discretion are relevant
to step two, not step one). It does not show that the district court found her
ineligible—a step one question.
Under step two, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Shangreaux’s motion for a sentence reduction. See id. (“[T]he court may decide, in
its discretion, not to reduce the sentence at all.”). The court considered the § 3553(a)
factors and described Shangreaux’s disciplinary problems in prison and the danger
she posed to the community. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B). The court also
weighed Shangreaux’s rehabilitative efforts but concluded that while her “history
and characteristics lend some support for her motion, they do not outweigh the need
for her sentence to protect the public.” Nor was the district court required to grant a
reduction proportionate to the original sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.
background (“The authorization of such a discretionary reduction . . . does not entitle
a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right.”); see also United
States v. Shamburger, 144 F.4th 1088, 1090 (8th Cir. 2025) (district court did not
abuse its discretion by declining to make a sentence reduction proportionate).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --