United States v. Marcin Garbacz

── United States v. Marcin Garbacz ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2172 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Marcin Stanislaw Garbacz Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: March 20, 2026 Filed: May 21, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In 2020 a jury found Marcin Garbacz guilty of committing wire fraud (Counts 1-50), money laundering (Counts 51-59), transportation of stolen money (Count 60), and making and subscribing a false tax return (Counts 61-65). At his sentencing, the district court determined his advisory sentencing guidelines range on Counts 1-60 was 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment.1 In 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 821, which provides for a 2-level reduction for defendants with zero criminal history points who meet various additional criteria, including, as relevant here, that they “did not personally cause substantial financial hardship.” See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). Garbacz moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his 57-month sentence to 46 months. The district court2 denied his motion, finding both that he was ineligible under the amended U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not support a sentence reduction. Garbacz appeals. When a defendant “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” a district court “may reduce the term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) requires a district court to conduct a two-part analysis to determine a prisoner’s eligibility for a sentencing reduction. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). First, the district court must determine “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 (citation modified). Second, the district court must “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. We review a district court’s determination that a defendant was ineligible for a sentencing reduction de novo and review its decision not to reduce his sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Tollefson, 853 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2017). “A district court abuses its discretion 1 It also sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment on Counts 61-65, to be served consecutively to the 57 months’ sentence. 2 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- when it (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. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation modified).