United States of America v. Luis Olivares

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2034
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Luis Olivares
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: April 10, 2023
Filed: August 16, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2014, Luis Olivares was convicted of three drug-related crimes and three
firearm-related crimes. The district court determined Olivares was subject to a
mandatory life sentence based upon two prior drug convictions. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (2002). Olivares appealed and this court affirmed. United States v.
Olivares, 843 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2016). In 2021, Olivares filed the present

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
motion for resentencing, arguing changes in law made after his sentence, through
the passage of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 401, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220
(2018), constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for resentencing. See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court1 denied the motion. Olivares appeals
and we affirm.
Olivares’s arguments are clearly precluded by this court’s precedent. See
United States v. Crandall, 25 F.4th 582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022) (holding “a non-
retroactive change in law, whether offered alone or in combination with other
factors, cannot contribute to a finding of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for
a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A)”). See also United States v.
Rodriguez-Mendez, 65 F.4th 1000, 1001 (8th Cir. 2023) (finding Concepcion v.
United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), “did not overrule our prior decision in
Crandall”).
Finally, to the extent Olivares argues his prior convictions should have never
qualified him for sentencing enhancements, even under prior law, he is attacking his
sentence and not providing an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to grant a
motion for resentencing. Olivares cites no authority which would allow this court to
review the eight-year-old sentence.
As Olivares’s arguments are precluded by this circuit’s precedent, we affirm.
_____________________________
1 The Honorable Jeffrey Lynn Viken, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 2 of 2 --