United States v. James Kent , 317 F. App'x 112 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-24-2009
USA v. James Kent
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4006
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. James Kent" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1697.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1697
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-52 (February 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4006
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
JAMES KENT,
also known as LASHON KENT,
also known as BERNARD BEARFORT
James I. Kent, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-CR-00065)
District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 27, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 24, 2009)
______________
OPINION
______________
PER CURIAM.
James Kent appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which denied his motion to modify his term of
1
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm the Court’s order.
By way of his motion, Kent sought to have his sentence reduced pursuant to
Amendment 660 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). As the District
Court noted, Amendment 660 revised U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, and became effective after Kent
was sentenced, but while his direct appeal was pending. The District Court properly
denied the motion. First, Amendment 660 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) as an
amendment which may be applied retroactively. See United States v. Thompson, 70 F.3d
279, 281 (3d Cir. 1995) (amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(c) is not given retroactive
effect). Second, even if Amendment 660 is a clarifying amendment which might be
applied to a case pending on direct appeal, see e.g., United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294,
301 (3d Cir.2001); Kent’s case is not on direct appeal. Third, as the District Court noted,
the Amendment, which recommends that state and federal sentences run concurrently in
certain situations, does not in any event apply in Kent’s case, as his state sentence was
due to revocation of his state-imposed parole. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 comment 3(C).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
2