Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0557-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Byron James MILLER, Appellant.
    No. 03-1279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
    Antoinette Decker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Byron James Miller, pro se, Pekin, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Byron James Miller appeals the District Court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that Miller is not entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 635 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the commentary of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (2002) (mitigating role in offense). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, Amendment 635 (Supp. 2002). Among other things, Amendment 635 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e) (2002). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a) (2002) (sentence reduction is authorized under § 3582(c)(2) where defendant’s Guidelines range has been lowered as result of amendment listed in subsection (c); sentence reduction not otherwise authorized); United States v. King, 280 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir.2002) (Congress gave Sentencing Commission explicit power, implemented in § 1B1.10, to decide whether its amendments will be given retroactive effect), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 965, 123 S.Ct. 402, 154 L.Ed.2d 324 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Catherine D. Periy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.