Court Opinion

ID: 1034272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-19 00:01:34.477037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:01.084076
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 12-3768
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                              Jermaine J. Arrington

                     lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                ____________

                            Submitted: July 16, 2013
                              Filed: July 18, 2013
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jermaine Arrington appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

      1
      The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
(FSA). We conclude that Arrington was not entitled to a reduction, as his Guidelines
sentencing range was calculated based on his unlawful possession of a firearm, see
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, which was not affected by any provision of the FSA. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court may reduce prison term of defendant who has been
sentenced based on sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
Sentencing Commission); United States v. Tolliver, 570 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir.
2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) allows sentence reduction only when amendment lowers
applicable Guidelines range).

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.
                     ______________________________

                                        -2-