Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01268/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlton Ivory
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1268

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Nebraska.

Carlton Ivory, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

Filed: July 29, 2010

___________

Before BYE, CLEVENGER,1

 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges, 

___________

PER CURIAM.

After being charged with and pleading guilty to possession with intent to

distribute both cocaine base (crack cocaine) and cocaine, Carlton Ivory was sentenced

to 121 months imprisonment under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(U.S.S.G.) § 2D1.1. On October 6, 2009, Ivory filed a motion for a sentence reduction

Appellate Case: 10-1268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2010 Entry ID: 3688117
2

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

-2-

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court2

 granted a two-level reduction and

resentenced him to 100 months imprisonment, the bottom of the amended guideline

range. Ivory appeals arguing the use of the two-level reduction violates the ex post

facto clause and the district court improperly limited its resentencing authority under

§ 3582(c)(2). We affirm.

On September 7, 2006, Ivory was sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The Sentencing Commission changed the calculation used to

determine the base offense for a defendant convicted of distributing both crack

cocaine and one or more other controlled substances under Amendment 706 on

November 1, 2007. This Amendment became retroactive on March 3, 2008, pursuant

to Amendment 713. The Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines again on

May 1, 2008, to address anomalies in the new calculation. See United States v.

Sipple, 544 F. Supp. 2d 859, 860-61 (D. Minn. 2008). The new Amendment,

Amendment 715, created a uniform two-level reduction and replaced Amendment

706. Ivory argued the district court should re-sentence him under Amendment 706,

which would have reduced his sentence to eighty-four months, instead of Amendment

715, which reduced his sentence to 100 months. The district court applied

Amendment 715.

Ivory argues the use of Amendment 715 to determine his sentence reduction,

as opposed to Amendment 706, violates the ex post facto clause of the United States

Constitution, which states "[n]o ex post facto Law shall be passed." U.S. Const. Art.

I, § 9. Ivory's sentence was reduced from 121 months to 100 months and the

application of Amendment 715 created a lesser punishment than that imposed when

he was originally sentenced. Therefore, because Ivory's sentence was not increased

by the later amendments, there is no ex post facto violation.

Appellate Case: 10-1268 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2010 Entry ID: 3688117
-3-

Ivory also argues the district court had the authority to reduce his sentence

below the amended guideline range pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). We have already considered this issue and decided "neither the Sixth

Amendment nor Booker 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)." United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir. 2009)

(emphasis added). The district court's authority to "reduce a defendant's sentence is

constrained by the limiting provisions of § 3582(c)(2) and the restrictions established

in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)." United States v. Wagner, 563 F.3d 680, 682 (8th Cir. 2009);

but cf. id. at 682-83. The Supreme Court recently agreed with this analysis. Dillon

v. United States, No. 09-6338, at *5-8 (U.S. June 17, 2010). The applicable policy

statement under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) states a defendant's term of imprisonment

cannot be less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. Ivory's amended

guideline range was 100-125 months. The district court properly applied Amendment

715 by limiting its reduction of Ivory's sentence to 100 months imprisonment.

Ivory's claim that resentencing under the limitations of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

produced a "greater than necessary" punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is without

merit. Ivory was sentenced to the minimum of the amended guideline range (100

months) after the two-level reduction. As we decided in Starks, the district court was

required to re-sentence Ivory within the amended guideline range. 551 F.3d at 842-43.

The district court had no discretion to give a lower sentence than that granted to Ivory.

Accordingly, we affirm.

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1268 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2010 Entry ID: 3688117