Court Opinion

ID: 821307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-02-26 16:02:09.226656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:12.681451
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 12-3014
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

             David Willie Seigler, also known as David Willis Seigler

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 20, 2013
                             Filed: February 26, 2013
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Texas inmate David Seigler appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 742

      1
       The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota.
(deleting “recency” criminal history points). We agree with the district court that
section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a sentencing reduction under Amendment 742,
because the amendment is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) among those Guidelines
amendments that may be applied retroactively. Thus, even if Amendment 742 were
a clarifying rather than substantive amendment, as Seigler argues, he is not entitled
to a reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620,
622 (4th Cir. 2004).

      We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-