United States of America v. George Buck

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3498
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
George Buck
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: June 13, 2025
Filed: August 19, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
George Buck pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine,
marijuana, and fentanyl, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), for gang-related
drug trafficking in Omaha, Nebraska. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
About a year later, he was diagnosed with aggressive brain cancer. The district

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
court1 denied his motion for compassionate release, assuming without deciding that
his condition was an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582, but finding the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release. Buck appeals.
When considering the need for Buck’s sentence to “reflect the seriousness of
the offense,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the district court noted that his original
sentence was below the guideline range of 210 to 262 months in prison and that Buck
received the statutory minimum sentence. Continuing, the court said that “Congress
in an exercise of its legislative function determined that fewer than ten years of
incarceration would fail to reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct,” and
that the statutory minimum shows that ten years in prison is “necessary ‘to afford
adequate deterrence.’” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). Buck argues that the district
court legally erred and thus abused its discretion by relying on the statutory
minimum sentence when conducting its § 3553(a) analysis. See United States v.
Marcussen, 15 F.4th 855, 858 (8th Cir. 2021) (denial of compassionate release
reviewed for abuse of discretion); Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)
(“A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”).
Contrary to Buck’s suggestion, the district court did not commit legal error by
“carv[ing] out” an exception into the compassionate release statute. True, the district
court considered it relevant that if released Buck would serve only “about one-eighth
of the statutory minimum sentence for his crime.” But in our view the court properly
considered the policy behind the mandatory minimum and its effect on the need for
the sentence to provide “just punishment,” to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,”
and to “afford adequate deterrence.” See § 3553(a)(2); see also United States v.
Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1008 (6th Cir. 2020) (Section 3553(a) factors “allow courts
to consider the ‘amount of time’ that a defendant has served on a sentence when
deciding whether to grant a sentence reduction.” (citation omitted)). And we see no
evidence in the record that the district court thought it could not reduce Buck’s
1 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
sentence below 120 months. Instead, the statutory minimum set by Congress was
one of many considerations informing the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors.
Buck also argues that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the
other § 3553(a) factors. He complains that the district court failed to consider that
his severe cancer means he is not a danger to the community, that he has behaved
well in prison, and that he “has every intention to be a law-abiding citizen if he is
released.” But “we do not require a district court to make a specific rejoinder to
every circumstance cited in support of a reduction.” United States v. Loggins, 966
F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court cited sentencing disparities, the
serious harm Buck caused to the Omaha community, his criminal history, and his
unfulfilled obligations (including more than $50,000 in unpaid child support). We
find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to give more weight to
these aggravating factors than it did to Buck’s mitigating factors. United States v.
Granados, 830 F.3d 840, 842 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --