Opinion ID: 1403923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity

Text: King argues this case should be remanded for resentencing based on the recent amendments to the Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. In addition, for the first time in this appeal, King asserts he might eventually benefit from the district court's consideration of the crack/powder disparity in the Guidelines under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Two changes have occurred during the pendency of King's appeal. First, effective November 1, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 706, which modifies the Guidelines ranges for crack cocaine offenses. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007), App. C, Amend. 706. Amendment 706 adjusts downward by two levels the base offense level assigned to each threshold quantity of crack cocaine listed in the Drug Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706. The Sentencing Commission has given retroactive effect to Amendment 706, beginning March 3, 2008. See 73 Fed.Reg. 217-01 (Jan. 2, 2008). Thus, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), [6] King's request for reduction of sentence in light of Amendment 706 must be decided by the district court in the first instance. The second change that occurred during the pendency of King's appeal was the Supreme Court's decision in Kimbrough. In Kimbrough, the Court held a sentence outside the Guidelines range is not per se unreasonable merely because the district court considered the sentencing disparity created by the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine quantity ratio set out in the Guidelines as a factor in determining the sentence. Id. However, as we have previously held, [w]e do not believe, though, that Kimbrough means that a district court now acts unreasonably, abuses its discretion, or otherwise commits error if it does not consider the crack/powder sentencing disparity. United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, ___, Nos. 06-3458, 06-3663, 2008 WL 323223, at  (8th Cir.2008); see United States v. Johnson, 517 F.3d 1020, ___, No. 07-1930, 2008 WL 516518, at  (8th Cir.2008) (Although Kimbrough empowers a district court to consider the disparity between guideline sentences for powder cocaine and crack, it does not require it to do so.). In this case, Kimbrough is not of any assistance to King. At no time prior to this appeal did King raise the issue of the disparity created by the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine quantity ratio. Nor did King ask the district court to consider the disparity in determining his sentence. Thus, King cannot argue on appeal the district court erred by failing to consider that factor. See, e.g., United States v. Filipiak, 466 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.2006) (concluding a defendant cannot complain on appeal that [his] sentence should have been reduced based upon § 3553(a) factors that were never brought to the attention of the district court). Consequently, we conclude, in the posture of this case, remand to consider the applicability of Kimbrough is inappropriate.