United States v. Byron James Miller
This text of 75 F. App'x 557 (United States v. Byron James Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Byron James Miller appeals the District Court’s 1 order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that Miller is not entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 635 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the commentary of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (2002) (mitigating role in offense). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, Amendment 635 (Supp. 2002). Among other things, Amendment 635 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e) (2002). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a) (2002) (sentence reduction is authorized under § 3582(c)(2) where defendant’s Guidelines range has been lowered as result of amendment listed in subsection (c); sentence reduction not otherwise authorized); United States v. King, 280 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir.2002) (Congress gave Sentencing Commission explicit power, implemented in § 1B1.10, to decide whether its amendments will be given retroactive effect), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 965, 123 S.Ct. 402, 154 L.Ed.2d 324 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Catherine D. Periy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 F. App'x 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-byron-james-miller-ca8-2003.