Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02178/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mustafa Abdullah
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2178

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Mustafa Abdullah, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2009

Filed: January 22, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1989, Mustafa Abdullah pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and to

one count of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). Abdullah was sentenced to 425 months’ imprisonment, which included a

365 month-sentence for the drug charge, a term of imprisonment at the top of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines (guidelines) range, and a consecutive sixtymonth sentence for the firearm charge. 

Appellate Case: 09-2178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Entry ID: 3626833
In 2008, after the Sentencing Commission had amended the guidelines and had

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

Abdullah moved for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The

district court1

 reduced his crack cocaine sentence to 235 months’ imprisonment, a

sentence at the bottom of the amended guidelines range. In its order denying

Abdullah’s motion for reconsideration, the district court stated that “a sentence below

the amended guideline range is not permissible in these circumstances.” On appeal,

Abdullah contends that the district court erred when it applied the amended sentencing

guidelines as mandatory.

Abdullah’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Starks,

551 F.3d 839 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009).2

 Section 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 Abdullah below the

guidelines range. See id. at 842-43. We reject Abdullah’s arguments that Spears v.

United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009), compels us to revisit the decision in Starks and

that the decision in Starks conflicts with our earlier analyses in United States v. Hasan,

245 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2001) (en banc), United States v. Mihm, 134 F.3d 1353 (8th

Cir. 1998), and United States v. Williams, 103 F.3d 57 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 

See United States v. Murphy, 578 F.3d 719, 721 (8th Cir. 2009). 

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

2

We note that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v.

Dillon, 572 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 2009 WL 2899562 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2009)

(No. 09-6338), which presents the following question: whether United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applies in sentence modification proceedings under §

3582(c). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-2178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Entry ID: 3626833
The district court correctly applied § 3582(c)(2) and guideline §

1B1.10(b)(2)(A) when it sentenced Abdullah within the amended guidelines range. 

We affirm. 

 ______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-2178 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Entry ID: 3626833