United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1657

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Juan Nava

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2020

Filed: March 26, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2009 Juan Nava pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine,

and he was sentenced to 210 months' imprisonment—the bottom of his recommended

Sentencing Guidelines range of 210–262 months. The sentence was then reduced by
36.5 months under USSG § 5G1.3(b) for time he had already served in state custody

on related charges, resulting in a sentence of 173.5 months.

Years later Nava moved to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the

Guidelines, which lowered recommended sentences for those convicted of many drug

crimes. Federal law allows "a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the

Sentencing Commission" to receive a reduction in his prison term "if such a reduction

is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court1 resentenced Nava to 168

months in prison, which was the bottom of his amended range of 168–210 months.

Nava moved the district court to reconsider and reduce his sentence by 36.5 months

to mirror the reduction he received under § 5G1.3(b) at his original sentencing. The

district court denied the motion.

Nava appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it failed to apply the

§ 5G1.3(b) adjustment. The relevant Guidelines policy statement provides that, with

one exception not relevant here, "the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of

imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that

is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range." USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

The district court here sentenced Nava to the minimum term of the amended guideline

range, so if the court applied the § 5G1.3(b) adjustment, it would have sentenced

Nava to a term below the amended guideline range. The issue, therefore, is whether

the court should have applied the adjustment even though the policy statement

precludes sentences below the amended range.

1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
Nava's argument is unavailing because our court has held at least three times

that § 5G1.3(b) adjustments cannot result in a sentence below the amended guideline

range in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Heaton, 918 F.3d 598, 600

(8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Helm, 891 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2018); United

States v. White, 859 F.3d 569, 572 (8th Cir. 2017). These decisions bind us. See

United States v. Oliver, 950 F.3d 556, 562 (8th Cir. 2020).

Nava maintains that these authorities do not bind us because an earlier

authority, United States v. Harris, 574 F.3d 971, 972–73 (8th Cir. 2009), recognized

that in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, which are not full resentencings, a district court

calculates only the amended guideline range and leaves all other guideline application

decisions unaffected. He contends that the district court should have therefore applied

the § 5G1.3(b) adjustment since that adjustment applied at the original sentencing.

Nava points out that the Supreme Court has recognized this principle as well. See

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). Nava therefore maintains that

Heaton, Helm, and White do not control this case because they conflict with Harris

and Dillon.

We see no incompatibility between the principle adverted to in Harris and

Dillon and the holdings in Heaton, Helm, and White. The directive to "leave all other

guideline application decisions unaffected" controls the district court's calculation of

the amended guideline range. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). But as we explained in

Heaton, "Section 5G1.3(b) does not enter into the calculation of an amended

guideline range." 918 F.3d at 600. In other words, a § 5G1.3(b) adjustment is not a

decision that must remain unaffected. We therefore sense no conflict in the cases that

would prevent Heaton, Helm, and White from applying here.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-3-