United States v. Delon Black
992 F.3d 703
8th Cir.2021Background
- Delon Black pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine; sentenced in 2004 to 262 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release.
- In February 2019 Black moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018.
- The district court found Black eligible for relief but denied a reduction after a discretionary review.
- The district court emphasized serious offense conduct (about 116 grams of crack and presence of an 11-year-old in the car) and an extensive prior criminal history (including armed robbery at 15, domestic assaults, prior drug possession, and assault on an officer).
- The court also relied on in-prison misconduct (two fights, one in 2019) and concluded Black remained likely to recidivate and posed a danger to the community.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's decision.
Issues
| Issue | Black's Argument | Government / District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility under the First Step Act | Black argued he was covered because his offense’s penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act | District court found Black eligible for consideration | Eligible — court proceeded to discretionary review |
| Adequacy of the district court’s explanation | The court’s reasoning was too cursory to permit meaningful appellate review | Court set out offense conduct, criminal history, prison fights, and recidivism concerns | Explanation was sufficient; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial equals an unlawful sentence increase/upward variance requiring special justification | Denial of relief effectively raises his sentence above the current Guidelines range and thus requires extra justification | Denial is not a new sentence; First Step Act does not require sentencing procedures or 3553(a) analysis | Denial is not an unlawful increase; no special procedural requirements in Eighth Circuit |
| Whether the court misweighed relevant factors | Black argued the court gave improper weight to certain factors and should have reduced the sentence | District court has broad latitude to weigh and prioritize sentencing factors | No abuse of discretion in how factors were weighed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Howard, 962 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act eligibility and discretionary relief framework)
- United States v. Hoskins, 973 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not mandate relief or specific procedures)
- United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (two-step eligibility then discretionary analysis)
- United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (sufficiency of district court explanation for denying relief)
- United States v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 2020) (district court’s wide latitude in weighing factors)
- United States v. Smith, 959 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2020) (contrasting Sixth Circuit view requiring significant justification when denial is well above updated Guidelines)