Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01829/USCOURTS-ca8-08-01829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keifer Dewayne Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 08-1829

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Keifer Dewayne Thomas,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: April 22, 2008

 Filed: May 8, 2008

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Keifer Dewayne Thomas appeals the district court's1

 denial of his motion for

a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment

706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the

base offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

Appellate Case: 08-1829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2008 Entry ID: 3432046
-2-

A career offender's base offense level is determined under USSG § 4B1.1 based

on the statutory maximum sentence applicable to the defendant's present offense of

conviction when that offense level is higher than the offense level resulting from the

otherwise applicable guidelines calculation. Mr. Thomas was sentenced as a career

offender, and his sentencing range was therefore determined by § 4B1.1, not by

§ 2D1.1. Although the Sentencing Commission lowered the offense levels in USSG

§ 2D1.1(c) related to crack cocaine drug quantities, it did not lower the sentencing

range for career offenders under USSG § 4B1.1, which is what set Thomas's

sentencing range. Mr. Thomas has therefore not met the eligibility requirements for

a reduction in his sentence. See § 3582(c)(2) (allowing resentencing for defendants

who were originally "sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission"). Application of Amendment 706

would not lower Thomas's applicable guideline range. See United States v. Tingle,

No. 08-1777, 2008 WL 1902055, at *1 (8th Cir. May 1, 2008); USSG

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (Suppl. Mar. 3, 2008) ("A reduction . . . is not authorized under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect

of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range."). 

The district court's judgment denying Mr. Thomas any relief pursuant to the

new amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-1829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2008 Entry ID: 3432046