United States v. James Borders ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-1542
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      *    Appeal from the United States
    *    District Court for the Eastern
    v.                                    *    District of Missouri.
    *
    James Borders,                        *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Defendant - Appellant.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 14, 2010
    Filed: June 23, 2010
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In 2000, James E. Borders was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute more
    than 50 grams of crack cocaine. The district court determined a Guidelines sentencing
    range of life imprisonment and imposed a life sentence. After the Sentencing
    Commission reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to crack cocaine
    offenses in Amendments 706 and 711of the Guidelines, Borders moved for
    modification of his sentence under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). The district court1 granted
    1
    The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    a two-level reduction, reducing the advisory range to 360 months to life
    imprisonment. The district court re-sentenced Borders to 360 months in prison.
    Borders appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it considered the
    Guidelines mandatory in applying § 3582(c)(2) and the policy statements in U.S.S.G.
    § 1B1.10. This argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.
    Starks, 
    551 F.3d 839
     (8th Cir. 2009), cited by United States v. Dillon, 
    572 F.3d 146
    ,
    150 (3d Cir. 2009), aff’d, No. 09-6338, slip op. at 14 (S. Ct. June 17, 2010). As the
    Supreme Court held, “proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth
    Amendment right to have essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Id. at 11. Therefore, the district court correctly applied 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c) and
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1542

Judges: Murphy, Beam, Benton

Filed Date: 6/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024