United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4456

___________________________

In re Sealed Case

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: November 13, 2017

Filed: June 12, 2018

____________

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

The appellant in this federal criminal case moved to reduce his sentence after

a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines lowered the base offense level

for his drug trafficking offense. The district court ruled that the appellant was

1

ineligible for a sentence reduction because his amended guideline range was

unchanged by the amendment. Although we analyze the motion differently, we agree

that the appellant was ineligible for a reduction, and we therefore affirm the order

denying the appellant’s motion.

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

District of Missouri.
The appellant pleaded guilty in January 2008 to conspiracy to distribute a

controlled substance. His offense conduct and criminal history resulted in an

advisory guideline range of 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment, but the statutory

maximum penalty for his offense was 240 months’ imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(C), so 240 months became the “guideline sentence.” See USSG § 5G1.1. 

The district court varied downward from the guideline sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and imposed a term of 210 months’ imprisonment. In 2013, the court

reduced the sentence to 150 months under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),

based on a motion by the government to reflect the appellant’s provision of

substantial assistance to authorities.

In September 2016, the appellant moved to reduce his sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c) based on a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines. 

Amendment 782 reduced the appellant’s base offense level by two levels and resulted

in an amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The district

court concluded that because the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months’

imprisonment was lower than the minimum of the appellant’s amended guideline

range, his “guideline range remains unchanged and he is not eligible for a further

reduction.”

A court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if he was sentenced “based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission.” 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(2). The appellant’s motion for reduction falters

at a threshold established by the plain language of § 3582(c): his sentence was not

“based on” a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered, because the district

court did not consider the guideline range of 324 to 405 months when it imposed

sentence. Rather, the court was required to disregard the guideline range and to

sentence the appellant based on the statutory maximum penalty of 240 months’

imprisonment. The lowered guideline range thus played no relevant part in

determining the appellant’s sentence, and he is ineligible for a reduction under

-2-
§ 3582(c). Koons v. United States, No. 17-5716, 2018 WL 2465190, at *3 (U.S. June

4, 2018).

The order of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-