Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02270/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael D. Whitelaw
Appellant

Document Text:

1

 The HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2270

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Michael D. Whitelaw, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: January 25, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1995, a jury found Michael D. Whitelaw guilty of distributing crack cocaine

and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. The district court

sentenced Whitelaw to the statutory maximum of 240 months on the drug offense and

a consecutive 60 months on the firearm offense. After the Sentencing Commission

reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to crack cocaine offenses in

Amendments 706, 711, and 713 to the Guidelines, Whitelaw moved for modification

of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court1

 granted a two-level

Appellate Case: 09-2270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Entry ID: 3627222
2

 We note that nearly every other circuit agrees with our decision in Starks. See,

e.g., United States v. Dillon, 572 F.3d 146, 148-50 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, --- S. Ct.

----, 2009 WL 2899562 (Dec. 7, 2009).

-2-

reduction, resulting in an amended guidelines range of 235-240 months on the drug

offense. The court re-sentenced Whitelaw to 235 months on that offense and a

consecutive 60 months on the firearm offense. In denying Whitelaw’s motion to

reconsider the new sentence, the court noted that it lacked “the authority to impose a

sentence below the amended guideline range.”

Whitelaw appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it considered the

Guidelines mandatory in applying § 3582(c)(2) and the policy statements in U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Starks, 551

F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009), that “neither the Sixth

Amendment nor [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),] prevents Congress

from incorporating a guideline provision as a means of defining and limiting a district

court’s authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c).” The district court correctly

applied 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) as construed in Starks,

which is binding on our panel. We reject Whitelaw’s contention that Spears v. United

States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009) -- a decision that did not mention § 3582(c)(2) -- permits

us to revisit the decision of another panel in Starks.

2

 Accordingly, we must affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Entry ID: 3627222