United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3112

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee

v.

Kevin L. Lucas, also known as Nook

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska

____________

 Submitted: May 13, 2013 

Filed: May 24, 2013

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court denied Kevin Lucas's motion for a sentence reduction under

1

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mr. Lucas appeals and we affirm.

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska.
In 2004, Mr. Lucas pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to possess

with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. He entered into a plea agreement with the

government in which he admitted responsibility for at least 500 grams but less than

1.5 kilograms of crack, a quantity that directly corresponded to a base offense level

of 36 under the sentencing guidelines then in effect, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2004). 

After determining that Mr. Lucas had a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months, the

district court sentenced him to 235 months' imprisonment. Four years later, the

Sentencing Commission amended § 2D1.1 to decrease the base offense levels for

crack, and Mr. Lucas relied on the amendment to obtain a sentence reduction under

§ 3582(c)(2), which permits a district court to reduce the sentence of a defendant

whose sentence was based on a guideline range that the Sentencing Commission has

lowered. As a result of the amendment, Mr. Lucas's sentencing range fell, and the

district court reduced his prison sentence to 188 months, the bottom of his new

sentencing range.

The Commission further amended the crack-offense provisions of § 2D1.1 in

2011. See U.S.S.G. Supp. app. C, amend. 750. Under this amendment, Mr. Lucas's

base offense level and, in turn, his sentencing range decreased only if he was

responsible for less than 840 grams of crack. Because neither the parties' plea

agreement nor the court's findings atsentencing attributed a specific drug quantity to

Mr. Lucas, the district court relied on the original presentence investigation report to

make a supplemental finding that he wasresponsible for 1.25 kilograms of crack, well

over the 840-gram limit. The court then concluded that Mr. Lucas was not eligible

for a sentence reduction because the amendment did not lower his sentencing range.

Mr. Lucas maintains that the court should have relied on the rule of lenity to

find him responsible for 500 grams of crack, the low end of the original agreed-upon

quantity, instead of making an additional finding. But we have recently rejected this

argument and permitted district courts to make additional findings necessary to

deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion, so long as the findings "are consistent with the

-2-
original sentencing determination and supported by the record." United States v.

Anderson, 707 F.3d 973, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted) (per curiam); see United States v. Moore, 706 F.3d 926, 928-29

(8th Cir. 2013).

Mr. Lucas contends, in the alternative, that the court's supplemental finding is

not supported by the record. In making the finding, which we review for clear error,

see United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941, 945 (8th Cir. 2012), the court properly

relied on facts set out in the PSR because Mr. Lucas filed no objections to them and

confirmed that he had no objections to the PSR when questioned by the court at

sentencing. See United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530, 541 (8th Cir.2010). We believe

that the facts in the PSR sufficiently support the court's drug-quantity determination. 

Mr. Lucas pleaded guilty to participating in a nine-month crack conspiracy, and he

reiterated to the probation officer that he wasselling drugs during thistime. When the

police came to his home at the end of the conspiracy, they found 9 ounces --

255 grams -- of crack in a heating vent. Mr. Lucas admitted that he had obtained

9 ounces of crack and an equal amount of powder cocaine three days earlier, had

converted the powder to crack, and had sold 9 ounces of crack. Mr. Lucas also

acknowledged that he had "purchased approximately 1.5 kilos of crack and powder"

"[o]ver the last several months." A police officer involved in the case opined that

Mr. Lucas "may be responsible for approximately two kilograms of cocaine base." 

Though Mr. Lucas mentioned powder as well as crack cocaine, he admitted to

converting powder cocaine to crack, to selling crack, and to participating in a ninemonth conspiracy to distribute crack. We conclude that the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Mr. Lucas was responsible for 1.25 kilograms of crack.

Affirmed.

______________________________

-3-