Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03307/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03307-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Robert Czeck
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3307

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Martin Robert Czeck, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2006

Filed: February 27, 2006

___________

Before BYE, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Martin Czeck appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. We affirm.

Section 3582(c)(2) provides that “in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . the court may reduce

the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to

Appellate Case: 05-3307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013916
-2-

the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with the applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” The applicable policy

statement--U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)--explains that a reduction under section 3582(c)(2)

is not consistent with the policy statement if “none of the amendments listed in

subsection (c) is applicable.” Amendment 674, on which Czeck relies, is not listed in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and thus the district court properly refused to reduce his

sentence. See Delgado v. United States, 162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998)

(amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(c) may not be applied to reduce sentence).

To the extent Czeck’s motion amounted to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, insofar

as he also sought to lower his sentence based on the vacation of his state court

convictions, his claim also failed. Putting aside the question whether Czeck’s motion

was second or successive, we find that it was untimely because Czeck waited more

than six years after his federal conviction became final to petition the state court for

habeas relief, and did not provide a sufficient excuse for the delay. See Johnson v.

United States, 125 S. Ct. 1571, 1575, 1582 (2005) (1-year limitation period for

defendant seeking to reopen federal sentence enhanced by state sentence based on

state court vacatur begins when petitioner receives notice of order vacating state

conviction, provided he sought it with due diligence in state court after entry of

judgment in federal case with enhanced sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Czeck’s section 3582(c)(2) motion, and

we deny Czeck’s appellate motion for appointed counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013916