1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1510

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Steven Adrian Beauchamp, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 5, 1999

 Filed: March 12, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Adrian Beauchamp pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine

and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Beauchamp objected to the

presentence report’s (PSR) calculation of his criminal history score, arguing that two

prior convictions were related and that his correct criminal history category was II

instead of III. The district court1 overruled Beauchamp’s objection, rejecting his

argument that it was bound by a prior ruling from a different federal district court and

noting that Beauchamp was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of
-2-

60 months. The court then granted the government’s motion to depart below the

mandatory minimum based on Beauchamp’s substantial assistance, and sentenced

him to 30 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Beauchamp

appeals, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history score

and that this court should review the erroneous calculation because it “may” affect

his status within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The government moved to dismiss the

appeal on the basis that the sentence is unreviewable. We grant the motion to

dismiss.

We agree with the government that Beauchamp’s challenge on appeal is

unreviewable because his 30-month sentence represents a downward departure from

the applicable Guidelines range of 60 months regardless of his criminal history

category. See United States v. Patterson, 20 F.3d 801, 808 (8th Cir.) (this court will

not review defendant’s argument that criminal history score was incorrect when

sentence imposed represents departure from applicable Guidelines range with or

without disputed criminal history points), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 845 (1994); United

States v. Baker, 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995) (where district court departs below

applicable Guidelines range with or without challenged enhancement, this court has

consistently held sentence is not reviewable). We do not believe that Beauchamp’s

speculative argument--that his status within the BOP “may” be affected by the alleged

error--requires us to address his otherwise unreviewable argument. Cf. United States

v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 689-90 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that court did not have to strike

disputed factual information in PSR which court said it was not relying on for

sentencing purposes, even though defendant argued prison officials might use

information to his disadvantage). Beauchamp’s recourse for any classification or

designation decision made by the BOP is through its administrative procedures. 

We decline to address the merits of Beauchamp’s arguments relating to his lawof-the-case/collateral-estoppel issue, as doing so would result in an advisory opinion.

See Patterson, 20 F.3d at 808 n.7 (declining to address merits of Guidelines issue
-3-

because even if appellant’s argument was correct, his sentence was below applicable

Guidelines range and was unreviewable; deciding merits of claim would not affect

rights of parties and would constitute advisory opinion). 

Accordingly, we hold that we lack the authority to review Beauchamp's

sentence and grant the government's motion to dismiss the appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.