524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Peters

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Apr 29, 2008

524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008)

Summary

holding that § 3582(c) did not authorize a modification because the defendant had received a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the court could not address any alleged error from the original sentencing

Summary of this case from United States v. Jauregui

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 08-1672.

Submitted: April 18, 2008.

Filed: April 29, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, William R. Wilson, Jr., J.

Shamico Peters, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Michael D. Johnson, AUSA, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Shamico Peters appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Mr. Peters' originally calculated guidelines range was 121 to 151 months, and he received a sentence of 120 months, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for the quantity of crack involved in his conviction. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b). In considering a reduction to a defendant's term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must determine the guidelines range as if the relevant amendment had been in place at the time of the original sentencing, and it may consider only the retroactive amendment in determining the amended guidelines range. See United States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 905, 122 S.Ct. 238, 151 L.Ed.2d 172 (2001); USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1) (Suppl. Mar. 3, 2008). In Mr. Peters' case, application of the new drug quantity guidelines would have resulted in a guidelines range of 120 to 121 months. See USSG § 5G1.1(c)(2) (setting the bottom of the guidelines range at the statutory mandatory minimum when it would otherwise be below the mandatory minimum). Mr. Peters was not entitled to a reduction of his 120-month sentence.

To the extent Mr. Peters asked the district court to reconsider his criminal history score pursuant to Amendment 709, that amendment is not a covered amendment under § 1B1.10 to which retroactive treatment may be given. See § 1B1.10(c). Further, as a part of this § 3582(c) proceeding, the district court was not allowed to address any alleged "clear error" which may have occurred at the original sentencing in determining the number of criminal history points allocated to another prior conviction. See Hasan, 245 F.3d at 685. Mr. Peters was and is not entitled to safety valve relief, but he is subject to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence that he received.

The district court's judgment denying Mr. Peters any relief pursuant to the retroactive amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

Summaries of

U.S. v. Peters

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Apr 29, 2008

524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008)

Summary of this case from United States v. Jauregui

holding Amendment 709 is not "covered amendment under § 1B1.10 to which retroactive treatment may be given"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Carter

holding that Amendment 709 was not retroactive and the district court was therefore barred from applying it

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Glover

holding that Amendment 709 was not retroactive and the district court was therefore barred from applying it

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Payne

holding that Amendment 709 is not given retroactive treatment

Summary of this case from U.S. v. McIntosh

holding that Amendment 709 is not given retroactive treatment

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Thompson

holding that Amendment 709 was not retroactive and the district court was therefore barred from applying it

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sharbutt

holding that Amendment 709 was not retroactive and the district court was therefore barred from applying it

Summary of this case from U.S. v. McKinney

holding that Amendment 709 is not a covered amendment under § 1B1.10 to which retroactive treatment may be given

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Stanko

holding reduction in sentence for a crack cocaine violation was inappropriate when the defendant was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Eirng

holding that Amendment 709 is not given retroactive treatment

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Equere

holding that Amendment 709 is not given retroactive treatment

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Mason

holding that Amendment 709 is not retroactive

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Buford

concluding that a sentence reduction was not authorized because the prisoner had received a statutory mandatory minimum sentence

Summary of this case from United States v. Seals

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Garcia-Garcia

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Jackson

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Welte

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Espinoza

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Hernandez

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Johnson

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Miller

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Moreno-Ramirez

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Ortiz-Martinez

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Smith

concluding that statutory mandatory minimum applied, and, consequently, defendant could not rely on Amendment 706 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanchez-Contreras

U.S. v. Peters

Summary

Opinion

U.S. v. Peters

U.S. v. Peters

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Peters

Summary

Opinion

U.S. v. Peters

U.S. v. Peters

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations