United States of America v. Tremayne Scoggins

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1358
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tremayne Scoggins
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: September 28, 2020
Filed: October 1, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After considering a number of factors, the district court1 decided not to reduce
Tremayne Scoggins’s 360-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub.
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host
of grounds, we affirm.
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 Scoggins’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 more than enough by considering the statutory sentencing factors
before making a decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Moore, 963
F.3d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in reviewing a First Step Act motion,
“a district court may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors”).
Scoggins’s remaining arguments fare no better. He was not entitled to a
plenary resentencing hearing, nor can he now challenge his original sentence. See
Moore, 963 F.3d at 728 (explaining how motions under the First Step Act are
different from “original, plenary sentencing” proceedings); United States v.
Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 843–44 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that district courts need not
hold hearings on these motions); see also United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080,
1089 (11th Cir. 2020) (refusing to entertain an attack on the original sentence in one
of these motions).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel
permission to withdraw.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --