From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 25, 2008
523 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2008)

Summary

holding that where a statutory minimum is greater than the amended Guidelines range, the defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction

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

Opinion

No. 08-1692.

Submitted: April 17, 2008.

Filed: April 25, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, J.

Jane Duke, Michael D. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Asst., Little Rock, AR, argued, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


[PUBLISHED]


Henry Jones 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 J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The top of Mr. Jones's originally calculated guidelines range was less than the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for the quantity of crack involved in his conviction, so that his final originally calculated guidelines range was the statutorily required minimum sentence of 120 months. See USSG § 5G1.1(b); 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. Jones's case, both his original guidelines range and any guidelines range calculated under the new amendments are the same — the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months. The district court properly concluded that Jones's guidelines range was unaffected by the recent amendments to the crack quantity guidelines because of the statutory mandatory minimum, USSG § 5G1.1(b), and therefore Mr. Jones was not entitled to a reduction of his sentence, see § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (district court may not reduce the defendant's sentence below the minimum of the amended guidelines range); id., comment, (n. 1(A)(ii)) (reduction not authorized if the retroactive amendment does not lower the defendant's applicable guidelines range because of a statutory provision, e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum sentence).

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


Summaries of

U.S. v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 25, 2008
523 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2008)

holding that where a statutory minimum is greater than the amended Guidelines range, the defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction

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

holding defendant subject to a statutory minimum sentence greater than the ordinary guideline range is not entitled to relief under Amendments 706 and 711

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

holding defendant subject to statutory minimum sentence greater than the ordinary guideline range is not entitled to relief under Amendments 706 and 711

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

holding that the defendant's "guidelines range was unaffected by the recent amendments to the crack quantity guidelines because of the statutory maximum" and "therefore [the defendant] was not entitled to a reduction in his sentence."

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

finding appellant ineligible for relief under retroactive amendments because original sentence imposed pursuant to mandatory minimum

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

finding appellant ineligible for relief under retroactive amendments because original sentence imposed pursuant to mandatory minimum

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

finding appellant ineligible for relief under retroactive amendments because original sentence imposed pursuant to mandatory minimum

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

addressing mandatory minimum sentence

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hawkins
Case details for

U.S. v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Henry JONES, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Apr 25, 2008

Citations

523 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Byers

The sentencing judge departed (pursuant to motions filed under 5K1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(3)(3)) below the 120…

Us. v. Baylor

Because Baylor's mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months was greater than the maximum of his original…