Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

524 F.3d 889

Docket No. 08-1829.

United States v. Thomas

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: April 22, 2008.

Filed: May 8, 2008.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2008-05-08

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Moore (2008), United States v. Mateo (2009)

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Mr. Thomas was sentenced as a career offender, and his sentencing range was therefore determined by § 4B1.1, not by § 2D1.1. Although the Sentencing Commission lowered the offense levels in USSG § 2Dl.l(e) related to crack-cocaine drug quantities, it did not lower the sentencing range for career offenders under USSG § 4B1.1, which is what set Thomas’s sentencing range. Mr. Thomas has therefore not met the eligibility requirements for a reduction in his sentence. Application of Amendment 706 would not lower Thomas’s applicable guideline range.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Moore

“[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. McGee

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582

Relies on United States v. Tingle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2008-05-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Keifer Thomas, pro se.

¶2Michael D. Johnson, AUSA, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

¶3Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Keifer Dewayne Thomas 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 § 2Dl.l(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

¶6A career offender’s base offense level is determined under USSG § 4B1.1 based on the statutory maximum sentence applicable to the defendant’s present offense of conviction when that offense level is higher *890than the offense level resulting from the otherwise applicable guidelines calculation. Mr. Thomas was sentenced as a career offender, and his sentencing range was therefore determined by § 4B1.1, not by § 2D1.1. Although the Sentencing Commission lowered the offense levels in USSG § 2Dl.l(c) related to crack cocaine drug quantities, it did not lower the sentencing range for career offenders under USSG § 4B1.1, which is what set Thomas’s sentencing range. Mr. Thomas has therefore not met the eligibility requirements for a reduction in his sentence. See § 3582(c)(2) (allowing resentencing for defendants who were originally “sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”). Application of Amendment 706 would not lower Thomas’s applicable guideline range. See United States v. Tingle, No. 08-1777, 524 F.3d 839, 840, 2008 WL 1902055, at *1 (8th Cir. May 1, 2008); USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (Suppl. Mar. 3, 2008) (“A reduction ... is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if-an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

¶7The district court’s judgment denying Mr. Thomas any relief pursuant to the new amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

/524/f3d/889 · .json · Public domain