8th Circuit upholds life sentence for Darius Whiting, ruling that nonretroactive changes in sentencing law…
United States v. Darius Whiting
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds life sentence for Darius Whiting, ruling that nonretroactive changes in sentencing law are not 'extraordinary and compelling' reasons for early release.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Darius Whiting's motion to reduce his life sentence for cocaine and firearm offenses. The court held that nonretroactive changes in sentencing law cannot serve as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that resolved a nationwide circuit split on that question. The court also found that the relevant sentencing factors, including Whiting's extensive criminal history and serious offense conduct, did not support a sentence reduction.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects federal prisoners who are seeking sentence reductions by arguing that changes in sentencing law passed after their conviction would have resulted in a shorter sentence. It also guides federal district courts across the Eighth Circuit in how to evaluate such compassionate release motions.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Darius Whiting was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to multiple cocaine and firearm offenses in federal court in Iowa. He later asked the court to reduce his sentence under a federal law that allows sentence reductions when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist. He argued two things: first, that changes made to drug sentencing law after he was sentenced would have resulted in a shorter sentence today, and second, that he had made exceptional efforts to rehabilitate himself in prison. The district court denied his motion, and the Eighth Circuit upheld that denial. On the question of nonretroactive legal changes, the appeals court relied on a recent Supreme Court decision, Rutherford v. United States (2026), which settled a long-running disagreement among the federal circuits. The Supreme Court plainly held that when Congress chooses not to make a sentencing change retroactive, the fact that a defendant would receive a shorter sentence under current law is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant early release. The Eighth Circuit said the district court was therefore correct to reject this argument. On rehabilitation, the court noted that Whiting did not develop that argument on appeal, so the court did not need to address it. The court added, however, that under federal law and Eighth Circuit precedent, rehabilitation alone cannot qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. The court also reviewed the district court's conclusion that standard sentencing factors did not support reducing Whiting's sentence. Those factors include the nature of the offense and the defendant's history. The record showed Whiting had an extensive history of drug and weapon offenses and involvement in violence. His current offense involved multiple firearms, leading a conspiracy to distribute over 2,000 grams of cocaine and cocaine base, and lying under oath after his arrest. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that these factors weighed against reducing his sentence. This decision reinforces the Supreme Court's ruling that nonretroactive sentencing changes cannot be used as a path to compassionate release, closing off an argument that some defendants had used in other circuits.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-3609 ___________________________ United States Plaintiff - Appellee v. Darius Terrel Whiting Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 16, 2026 Filed: July 21, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Darius Whiting was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to several cocaine and firearm-related offenses. He moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), arguing he would receive a lesser sentence if he were sentenced today due to nonretroactive changes to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) and that he has made “exceptional” rehabilitative efforts. When weighing motions like Whiting’s, courts generally engage in a three- step analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Rodd, 966 F.3d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 2020). They first decide whether the defendant “fully exhausted all [his] administrative rights . . . .” Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). If he did, they then consider whether he showed that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction. Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). And if so, they consider whether “the factors set forth in [§] 3553(a)[,] to the extent that they are applicable,” support reducing his sentence. Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)); accord United States v. Bryant, 144 F.4th 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2025) (“Even if a district court identifies an extraordinary and compelling reason, it may not grant relief unless the § 3553(a) factors support the reduction.”). The district court 1 concluded, at step one, that Whiting exhausted his administrative remedies. But it denied his motion for two reasons. First, because neither of the bases he offered at step two — nonretroactive changes in the law and rehabilitation — are extraordinary and compelling. And second, the § 3553(a) factors did not support reducing his sentence at step three, given his extensive criminal history and the nature of his offense. Whiting appeals, arguing the district court “reversibly erred in believing it was not permitted to consider nonretroactive changes in law” as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. We review this issue de novo. See Rodd, 966 F.3d at 746. “The Circuits . . . divided over whether the disparity created by a nonretroactive change to sentencing law . . . can constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants compassionate release.” Rutherford v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1329–30 (2026) (cleaned up). But the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Rutherford “to resolve the split” and plainly held, “When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the fact that a preamendment sentence is longer than it would have been postamendment is not an extraordinary and compelling 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- reason that warrants a sentence reduction.” Id. at 1330 (cleaned up). The district court thus correctly concluded the nonretroactive changes in applicable law Whiting raised do not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence.2 The district court alternatively denied Whiting’s motion because, in its view, the § 3553(a) factors do not support reducing his sentence. We review this determination for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Fetters, 163 F.4th 513, 517 (8th Cir. 2026). As the district court explained, Whiting has an extensive track record of various drug and weapon-related offenses, as well as engaging in violence. His present offense conduct alone involved possession of multiple firearms and leading a conspiracy to distribute over 2,000 grams of cocaine and cocaine base. And after he was apprehended, Whiting lied under oath in an attempt to exculpate one of his coconspirators. Against this backdrop, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the § 3553(a) factors do not support reducing Whiting’s sentence. See, e.g., United States v. McDonald, No. 20-1789, 2022 WL 782696, at *2 (8th Cir. Mar. 15, 2022); United States v. Logan, 819 F. App’x 462, 466 (8th Cir. 2020). We affirm the district court’s order. ______________________________ 2 Whiting also argued, in his motion to the district court, that he has made “extraordinary” rehabilitative efforts. He does not develop any specific arguments regarding his rehabilitation on appeal, however, so we need not consider it. Falco v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 795 F.3d 864, 868 (8th Cir. 2015). And even if he had, rehabilitation “alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” United States v. Rodriguez-Mendez, 168 F.4th 1123, 1124 (8th Cir. 2026) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). -3-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.