Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01736/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01736-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Levell McFadden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1736

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Christopher Levell McFadden, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2008

Filed: May 1, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher McFadden appeals from the district court’s1

 order denying his

motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on

Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which

reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine

base (crack).

Appellate Case: 08-1736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2008 Entry ID: 3429137
-2-

McFadden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more

than 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base and to using a communication

facility to distribute cocaine base. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.

Although McFadden’s original drug quantity-driven sentencing range was 188

to 235 months’ imprisonment, he faced a 108-month statutory maximum (five-year

maximum on the conspiracy charge, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and a four-year maximum

on the use of communication facility, see 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)(d)), which became his

guidelines sentencing range, see USSG § 5G1.1(a) (“Where the statutorily authorized

maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the applicable guideline range, the

statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”).

A two-level decrease based on drug quantity would result in a sentencing range

of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, with the result that McFadden’s newly

calculated guideline range would still be limited by USSG § 5G1.1(a) and would

remain unchanged at 108 months. McFadden is thus not entitled to a reduction under

Amendment 706. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term

of imprisonment . . . is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–[a]n

amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the

defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

The district court’s judgment denying McFadden any relief pursuant to the

retroactive amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2008 Entry ID: 3429137