United States of America v. Corbin Conroy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2304
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Corbin Conroy
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: March 17, 2025
Filed: April 23, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In November 2019, Corbin Conroy pleaded guilty to interference with
commerce by robbery, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2, and conspiracy to use, carry, and
possess a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii),
(o). Based on a criminal history category of III and a total offense level of 22, his

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
advisory sentencing guidelines range was 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The
district court1 varied upwards and sentenced him to 84 months’ imprisonment.
In April 2024, Conroy moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), requesting that the district court apply a newly enacted sentencing
guidelines amendment. Applying Amendment 821 would reduce his total criminal
history points and result in a new guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment.
The district court denied his motion, finding that Amendment 821 applied but that a
sentence reduction was unwarranted. Conroy argues that this was an abuse of
discretion.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th
Cir. 2010). “An abuse of discretion occurs where a district court (1) fails to consider
a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate
factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United
States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A district court conducts a two-step inquiry to decide whether to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
First, the district court determines whether and to what extent the defendant is
eligible for a sentence reduction by calculating “the amended guideline range that
would have been applicable to the defendant had the relevant amendment been in
effect at the time of the initial sentencing.” Id. at 827 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Second, it considers the § 3553(a) factors, public safety, and the
defendant’s post sentencing conduct to “determine whether, in its discretion,” the
authorized reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under the particular
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
circumstances of the case.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B) (listing factors for
consideration); Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
Conroy argues that, under the second step, the district court placed undue
weight on his history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense,
and his post-sentencing conduct, all while failing to credit his rehabilitation efforts.
We disagree. “[A] district court has wide latitude to assign weight to given factors,
and the district court may give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or
more weight to other factors, but that alone does not justify reversal.” Noriega, 35
F.4th at 651 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Here, the district
court first pointed to Conroy’s post-sentencing conduct. His Bureau of Prisons
disciplinary record indicated that Conroy had destroyed property worth more than
$100, refused to obey an order, moved cells without permission, refused a work
assignment at least nine times, and committed assault without serious injury.
Second, the district court reasoned that the nature and circumstances of Conroy’s
crime—brandishing a firearm and threatening a casino employee barely a month
after he began supervised release for a similar casino robbery—“raise serious doubts
as to whether a sentence less than 84 months would sufficiently protect the public
from further crimes.” Third, it found that the § 3553(a) factors confirmed that a
sentence reduction was not warranted. Altogether, the district court did not commit
“a clear error of judgment” when it weighed Conroy’s history and characteristics,
the nature and circumstances of his offense, and his post-sentencing conduct. See
Noriega, 35 F.4th at 651.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider
Conroy’s rehabilitation efforts. “Although a district court may consider evidence of
a defendant’s rehabilitation since his prior sentencing, it is not required to adjust a
sentence.” United States v. Hernandez-Marfil, 825 F.3d 410, 412 (8th Cir. 2016)
(per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Altogether, we discern no abuse of
discretion.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --