1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 08-1672

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Shamico Peters,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

[PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: April 18, 2008

 Filed: April 29, 2008

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Shamico Peters appeals the district court's1

 denial of his motion for a reduction

of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the base offense

levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).
-2-

Mr. Peters' originally calculated guidelines range was 121 to 151 months, and

he received a sentence of 120 months, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for

the quantity of crack involved in his conviction. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b). In

considering a reduction to a defendant's term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2), the

district court must determine the guidelines range as if the relevant amendment had

been in place at the time of the original sentencing, and it may consider only the

retroactive amendment in determining the amended guidelines range. See United

States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 905

(2001); USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1) (Suppl. Mar. 3, 2008). In Mr. Peters' case, application

of the new drug quantity guidelines would have resulted in a guidelines range of 120

to 121 months. See USSG § 5G1.1(c)(2) (setting the bottom of the guidelines range

at the statutory mandatory minimum when it would otherwise be below the mandatory

minimum). Mr. Peters was not entitled to a reduction of his 120-month sentence. See

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (district court may not reduce the defendant's sentence below the

minimum of the amended guidelines range); id., comment. (n.1(A)(ii)) (reduction not

authorized if the retroactive amendment does not lower the defendant's applicable

guidelines range because of a statutory provision, e.g., a statutory mandatory

minimum sentence). 

To the extent Mr. Peters asked the district court to reconsider his criminal

history score pursuant to Amendment 709, that amendment is not a covered

amendment under § 1B1.10 to which retroactive treatment may be given. See

§ 1B1.10(c). Further, as a part of this § 3582(c) proceeding, the district court was not

allowed to address any alleged "clear error" which may have occurred at the original

sentencing in determining the number of criminal history points allocated to another

prior conviction. See Hasan, 245 F.3d at 685. Mr. Peters was and is not entitled to

safety valve relief, but he is subject to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence that

he received.
-3-

The district court's judgment denying Mr. Peters any relief pursuant to the

retroactive amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________