United States v. David Seigler

498 F. App'x 671
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 26, 2013
Docket12-3014
StatusUnpublished

This text of 498 F. App'x 671 (United States v. David Seigler) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. David Seigler, 498 F. App'x 671 (8th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Texas inmate David Seigler appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 742 (deleting “recency” criminal history points). We agree with the district court that section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a sentencing reduction under Amendment 742, because the amendment is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) among those Guidelines amendments that may be applied retroactively. Thus, even if Amendment 742 were a clarifying rather than substantive amendment, as Seigler argues, he is not entitled to a reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir.2004).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Charles William McHan
386 F.3d 620 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
498 F. App'x 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-seigler-ca8-2013.