Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03681/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Floyd King
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3681

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Floyd King, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 7, 2010

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2000, Floyd King pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute crack

cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and the District Court1

 sentenced him to 292 months in

prison, the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. Notably, King qualified as a

career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but because the drug-quantity base offense

level of 38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was higher than the career-offender offense level,

Appellate Case: 08-3681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625283
2

The section 4B1.1 career-offender provision had the sole effect of raising

King’s Category IV criminal history to Category VI. 

-2-

the drug-quantity base offense level was used.2

 Later, the District Court granted the

government’s motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and

reduced King’s sentence by approximately 33% to 195 months in prison. 

In 2008, King filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 706, which provides for a 2-level reduction

in the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses. The District Court concluded that

although application of Amendment 706 reduced King’s base offense level from 38

to 36, the higher career-offender offense level of 37 applied because King qualified

as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (directing sentencing courts to apply the

career-offender offense level if it is greater than an otherwise applicable offense

level). Thus King's new Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months in prison. After

applying a 33% reduction to the bottom of the new Guidelines range, the court

reduced King’s sentence from 195 months to 175 months in prison.

King appeals, arguing that (1) the Rule 35 reduction made the career-offender

provision inapplicable and the court should have calculated his new Guidelines range

using a base offense level of 36, not 37; (2) U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2009), the Guidelines

provision on sentencing reductions under § 3852(c)(2), was rendered advisory by

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); (3) section 1B1.10’s limitation on the

District Court’s authority to reduce his sentence further was unconstitutional; and (4)

he was entitled to a hearing to seek a greater reduction based on his exemplary postconviction conduct and to challenge the merits of his career-offender status. 

We conclude that all of King’s arguments fail. See United States v. Tolliver,

570 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that a district court’s modification of a

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed de novo). First, the Rule 35 reduction did not

Appellate Case: 08-3681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625283
-3-

affect how Amendment 706 applied. See id. at 1066 (observing that where a

defendant was originally sentenced as a career offender but the court later departed

downward, the sentencing range for purposes of determining whether Amendment 706

applied was the pre-departure range). 

Second, the District Court correctly calculated King’s new Guidelines range.

Had Amendment 706 been in effect at the time of King's original sentencing, his drugquantity base offense level under section 2D1.1 would have been 36. Because the

career-offender offense level of 37 was higher, it would have been used to calculate

the appropriate Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (noting that in

determining whether and to what extent to reduce a defendant’s sentence under

§ 3582(c) and Amendment 706, the court substitutes only the listed amendments for

the corresponding Guidelines provisions that were applied at sentencing and leaves

all other Guidelines application decisions unaffected); id. § 4B1.1 (directing

sentencing courts to apply career-offender offense level if it is greater than an

otherwise applicable offense level). 

Third, Booker did not render section 1B1.10 advisory, and the limitation in that

section on a district court’s authority to reduce a prisoner’s sentence is constitutional

and enforceable. United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 841–43 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009). Finally, King was not entitled to a hearing to present

evidence in support of a greater reduction, see id. at 843, or to challenge the merits of

his career-offender status, see United States v. Harris, 574 F.3d 971, 972 (8th Cir.

2009) (holding that proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 do not constitute

full resentencing).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3681 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625283