Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02707/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin B. Paige
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2707

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * On Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Kevin B. Paige, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

Filed: June 22, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Kevin Paige was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise

to distribute cocaine base and additional firearms and money laundering offenses, he

was sentenced to 780 months of imprisonment (600 of which were for the drug

offense). In 2008 Paige moved for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

Appellate Case: 09-2707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676426
1

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

District of Missouri.

-2-

The district court1

 granted Paige’s motion and reduced his offense level by two

levels, resulting in a modified guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court then

resentenced Paige to 365 months imprisonment. Paige appeals, alleging that the

district court failed to give adequate consideration to the sentencing criteria under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). He seeks a reduced sentence of no more than 292 months

imprisonment. 

A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing, Dillon v. United

States, No. 09-6338, slip op. at 10 (S. Ct. June 17, 2010), and the district court’s

authority to modify a sentence under that section is limited. United States v. Starks,

551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir. 2009). Paige’s initial and reduced sentences were both

at the high end of their respective guideline ranges. See United States v. Clark, 563

F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing at the top of the

guideline range when the initial sentence was also at the top of the guideline range).

The district court indicated in its order, albeit briefly, that it was considering the §

3553(a) factors. This was sufficient for a resentencing under § 3582(c)(2). Dillon,

slip op. at 10; Clark, 563 F.3d at 725 (lengthy discussions of § 3553(a) factors are not

required in a resentencing).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676426