Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-04009/USCOURTS-ca8-08-04009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clinton B. Allen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-4009

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Clinton B. Allen, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 18, 2009

Filed: January 6, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clinton Allen (Allen) appeals following the district court’s1

 reduction of his

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the recent amendments to the

Sentencing Guidelines related to cocaine base or crack cocaine. Allen was originally

sentenced at the bottom of his then-applicable Guidelines range. In resentencing

Allen under the crack cocaine amendments, the district court reduced Allen’s sentence

to the bottom of the revised Guidelines range. On appeal, Allen contends the court

should have imposed an even lower sentence.

1

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

District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 08-4009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2010 Entry ID: 3621449
Upon careful review, we find no error. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d

839, 843 (8th Cir.) (deciding, where the defendant was originally sentenced within the

applicable Guidelines range, and in the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding received a sentence

at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to further

reduction based upon the § 3553(a) factors, and the district court correctly determined

it lacked authority to reduce the sentence below the bottom of the amended Guidelines

range unless defendant was originally sentenced below the original Guidelines range),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009). To the extent Allen argues that the court should

have held a section 3583(c)(2) hearing, the argument lacks merit. See id. (declaring

the district court is not required to hold a hearing in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding). The

judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 08-4009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2010 Entry ID: 3621449