Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02296/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02296-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven W. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

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. 09-2296

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Steven W. Brown, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: May 12, 2010

___________

Before SMITH and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges, and KORNMANN,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven W. Brown appeals following the district court's2

 grant of his motion for

a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the 2008 Guidelines

amendments, which retroactively reduce base offense levels for particular offenses

involving cocaine base. The district court reduced Brown's offense level by two levels,

yielding a modified Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months' imprisonment, and

Appellate Case: 09-2296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2010 Entry ID: 3663702
-2-

sentenced Brown to the bottom of the modified Guidelines range. Brown argues that

the district court erroneously applied the Guidelines as mandatory in resentencing him

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

I. Background

A jury convicted Brown of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ("Count 1"), and possession of cocaine base with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) ("Count 2"). 

The presentence investigation report calculated Brown's base offense level as

34 based on his responsibility for 150 to 500 grams of cocaine base. After a four-level

increase was applied for being a leader or organizer, Brown's total offense level

became 38. Brown had 16 criminal history points, resulting in a criminal history

category of VI. His Guidelines range was 360 months' to life imprisonment. 

The district court sentenced Brown to 360 months' imprisonment—the bottom

of the Guidelines range—on Counts 1 and 2, to run concurrently, followed by a fiveyear term of supervised release on each count to be served concurrently. The statutory

mandatory minimum for Count 1 was 120 months' imprisonment. 

Subsequently, Brown filed a motion, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendments

706 and 711 to the Guidelines, seeking a reduction in his sentence. The district court

granted Brown's motion and reduced his offense level by two levels, yielding a

modified Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months' imprisonment. The district court

sentenced Brown to 324 months' imprisonment, the bottom of the modified Guidelines

range. 

Brown then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order reducing his

sentence, requesting that the court sentence him below the modified Guidelines range

to 120 months' imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum for Count 1. The

Appellate Case: 09-2296 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2010 Entry ID: 3663702
-3-

government opposed the motion, citing United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839 (8th Cir.

2009). The district court denied the motion, finding that, pursuant to Starks, it

"lack[ed] the authority to impose a sentence below the amended [G]uideline[s] range."

II. Discussion

Brown argues that the district court erroneously applied the Guidelines as

mandatory when resentencing him pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Brown acknowledges our

precedent that the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not

apply to resentencing proceedings under § 3582(c)(2). However, he asks this panel to

revisit this holding in light of Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009). 

We have, on several occasions, reaffirmed our holding that in § 3582(c)(2)

proceedings, a district court lacks authority to reduce a defendant's sentence below the

amended Guidelines range and that such proceedings do not constitute a full

resentencing of the defendant. United States v. Hall, No. 09-1043, 2009 WL 4062876,

at *1 n.2 (8th Cir. Nov. 25, 2009) (unpublished per curiam); see also United States v.

Mull, No. 09-2703, 2010 WL 521003, at *1 (8th Cir. Feb. 16, 2010) (unpublished per

curiam) ("These arguments are 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 defendant]

argues that Starks was incorrectly decided, but as a panel we may not reconsider it.");

United States v. Lucas, No. 09-1684, 2010 WL 251671, at *1 (8th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010)

(unpublished per curiam) ("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 [the defendant'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."); United States v. Abdullah, No. 09-2178, 2010

WL 199639, at *1 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished per curiam) ("Section

Appellate Case: 09-2296 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2010 Entry ID: 3663702
-4-

3582(c)(2) and guideline § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) limit a district court's authority to reduce

sentences following the retroactive reduction of a guidelines sentencing range. In

Starks, we held that those limitations remain constitutional and enforceable. 551 F.3d

at 843. Accordingly, the district court lacked authority to sentence [the defendant]

below the guidelines range."). 

"We are bound by circuit precedent to affirm the district court's decision in this

case." Hall, 2009 WL 4062876, at *1 (citing United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820,

823–24 (8th Cir. 2008)). 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2296 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2010 Entry ID: 3663702