United States v. Jeffrey Alan Sondag, 2 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Jeffrey Alan Sondag, 2 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stenson v. Saul (cand, 2021-01-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stenson v. Saul
N.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
No. 18 at 10.) According to Defendant, the 26 ALJ identified that there was a “lack of consistency” between Plaintiff’s subjective symptom 27 testimony and the objective medical evidence, and therefore it was appropriate to discredit 1 clear and convincing reasons for the specific testimony he found not credible, see Laborin, 867 2 F.3d at 1155, and ignores the ALJ’s “cherry-picking” of information from Dr. Rana’s and Dr. 3 Martin’s reports, see Cotton, 374 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
These laws “will be 25 upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to 26 the putative local benefit.” Id. “[U]nder Pike, a plaintiff must first show that the statute 27 imposes a substantial burden before the court will ‘determine whether the benefits of the 28 1 challenged laws are illusory.’” Eleveurs, 729 F.3d at 951–52 (quoting Optometrists, 682 2 F.3d at 1155). 3 “[M]ost statutes that impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce do so 4 because they are discriminatory” or attempt to regulate extraterritorially.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Jeffrey Alan Sondag
93-1553.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Aug 19, 1993.
2 F.3d 1155
Unpublished

2 F.3d 1155

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Jeffrey Alan SONDAG, Appellant.

No. 93-1553.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 4, 1993.
Filed: August 19, 1993.

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Jeffrey Alan Sondag, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court's[1] order denying his motion to reduce his sentence. We affirm.

2

In August 1991 the district court sentenced Sondag to seventy-eight months imprisonment, after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846. In calculating Sondag's sentencing range, the court had awarded him a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a). In January 1993, Sondag moved to reduce his offense level by another point under amended U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(b) (Nov. 1, 1992). The district court denied the motion, and he appealed.

3

As the district court observed, section 3E1.1(b) was not in effect when Sondag was sentenced. We construe his motion as one made under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) (court may reduce previously-imposed prison sentence when Sentencing Commission has lowered applicable sentencing range, if such reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements). His argument that section 3E1.1(b) should be applied retroactively to him is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Dowty, No. 93-1634, slip op. at 3 (8th Cir. June 25, 1993) (per curiam) (analyzing retroactivity of section 3E1.1(b) under section 3582(c)(2) and concluding that section 3E1.1(b) is not retroactive).

4

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska