Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02703/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02703-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Edward Mull
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE WARREN K. URBOM, United States District Judge for

the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2703

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

John Edward Mull, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 8, 2010

 Filed: February 16, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2000, a jury found John Edward Mull guilty of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine base. The district court determined a sentencing range of 235-293 months

under the then-mandatory Guidelines and sentenced Mull to 240 months in prison.

After the Sentencing Commission reduced by two levels the offense level applicable

to Mull’s crack cocaine offense in Amendments 706, 711, and 713 to the nowadvisory Guidelines, Mull moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). The district court1

 granted a two-level reduction, resulting in an

Appellate Case: 09-2703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Entry ID: 3634337
2

 We note that nearly every other circuit agrees with our decision in Starks.

See, e.g., United States v. Dillon, 572 F.3d 146, 148-50 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, --- S.

Ct. ----, 2009 WL 2899562 (Dec. 7, 2009). 

-2-

amended range of 188-235 months. The court sentenced Mull to 192 months in

prison, explaining that it would have imposed this sentence if “the amended guideline

range were in effect at the time of [Mull’s] original sentencing” because both 240

months, the original sentence, and 192 months were approximately two percent higher

than the low end of the applicable range. 

Mull appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce

his sentence below the amended guidelines range, by calculating the reduced sentence

using a mathematical formula, and by not granting an evidentiary hearing. 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).” Mull argues that Starks was incorrectly

decided, but as a panel we may not reconsider it.2

 

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, 551 F.3d at 841-43, and in United States v.

Hasan, 245 F.3d 682, 685-87 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 905 (2001).

The district court did not simply apply a mathematical formula. It properly

determined what sentence it would have imposed had the amended guidelines range

applied at the time of the original sentencing. An evidentiary hearing is not needed

to make this determination. To the extent Mull argues that the district court did not

adequately consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining the extent of his

reduction within the amended guidelines range, this argument is foreclosed by United

States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2009). As in Clark, the district court

Appellate Case: 09-2703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Entry ID: 3634337
-3-

considered the § 3553(a) factors at Mull’s original sentencing and noted that it gave

an amended sentence that was proportional to the original sentence.

The district court order dated June 24, 2009, is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2703 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Entry ID: 3634337