Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0899-02.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. Kelvin SETTLE, Appellant.
    No. 03-1339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 28, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 3, 2003.
    Kenneth R. Tihen, Assistant U.S. Atty., Kenneth R. Tihen, Assistant U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kelvin Settle, pro se, Millington, TN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Settle, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying Settle’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion in which he sought retroactive application of Amendments 624 and 640 under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. On appeal, Settle also asks this court to take notice of Amendment 599. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not commit error. A court may not grant a section 3582(c)(2) motion unless a reduction would be consistent with the applicable policy statements found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and section 1B1.10 does not permit retroactive application of Amendments 624 and 640 in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Cf. United States v. Dowty, 996 F.2d 937, 938-39 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (amendment to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b) could not be applied retroactively in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding when amendment was not listed in § lB1.10(c)). Amendment 599 does not help Settle because it deals with relevant conduct in cases where the defendant is charged with a separate weapon offense, which did not occur in Settle’s case.

We affirm the district court and deny Settle’s pending motions. 
      
       The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.