United States v. Billy Davis , 364 F. App'x 297 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2282
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Billy D. Davis, also known as           *
    Lil Spook,                              *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 20, 2010
    Filed: February 4, 2010
    ___________
    Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Billy Davis appeals following the district court’s1 reduction of his sentence
    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the amendments to the Guidelines related to
    cocaine base or crack cocaine. Davis was originally sentenced at the bottom of his
    then-applicable Guidelines range. In resentencing Davis in light of the crack cocaine
    amendments, the district court reduced Davis’s sentence to the bottom of the revised
    Guidelines range. On appeal, Davis contends that the court should have recalculated
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    his criminal history category in light of Guidelines Amendment 709, and that the court
    should have imposed a sentence below the revised Guidelines range.
    Upon careful review, we find no error. See United States v. Starks, 
    551 F.3d 839
    , 843 (8th Cir.) (where defendant was originally sentenced within applicable
    Guidelines range and in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding received sentence at bottom of
    amended Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to further reduction based on
    § 3553(a) factors), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 2746
    (2009); United States v. Peters, 
    524 F.3d 905
    , 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (Amendment 709 is not listed amendment to
    which retroactive treatment may be given), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 290
    (2008).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2282

Citation Numbers: 364 F. App'x 297

Judges: Bye, Per Curiam, Riley, Shepherd

Filed Date: 2/4/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024