Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02282/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy D. Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2282

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Billy D. Davis, also known as *

Lil Spook, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 20, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Davis appeals following the district court’s1

 reduction of his sentence

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

cocaine base or crack cocaine. Davis was originally sentenced at the bottom of his

then-applicable Guidelines range. In resentencing Davis in light of the crack cocaine

amendments, the district court reduced Davis’s sentence to the bottom of the revised

Guidelines range. On appeal, Davis contends that the court should have recalculated

Appellate Case: 08-2282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631109
-2-

his criminal history category in light of Guidelines Amendment 709, and that the court

should have imposed a sentence below the revised Guidelines range.

Upon careful review, we find no error. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d

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

Guidelines range and in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding received sentence at bottom of

amended Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to further reduction based on

§ 3553(a) factors), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009); United States v. Peters, 524

F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (Amendment 709 is not listed amendment to

which retroactive treatment may be given), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 290 (2008).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631109