United States v. Keifer Thomas

524 F.3d 889, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9812, 2008 WL 1969739
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 2008
Docket08-1829
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 524 F.3d 889 (United States v. Keifer Thomas) 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. Keifer Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9812, 2008 WL 1969739 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Keifer Dewayne Thomas appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2Dl.l(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

A career offender’s base offense level is determined under USSG § 4B1.1 based on the statutory maximum sentence applicable to the defendant’s present offense of conviction when that offense level is higher *890 than the offense level resulting from the otherwise applicable guidelines calculation. Mr. Thomas was sentenced as a career offender, and his sentencing range was therefore determined by § 4B1.1, not by § 2D1.1. Although the Sentencing Commission lowered the offense levels in USSG § 2Dl.l(c) related to crack cocaine drug quantities, it did not lower the sentencing range for career offenders under USSG § 4B1.1, which is what set Thomas’s sentencing range. Mr. Thomas has therefore not met the eligibility requirements for a reduction in his sentence. See § 3582(c)(2) (allowing resentencing for defendants who were originally “sentenced ... based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”). Application of Amendment 706 would not lower Thomas’s applicable guideline range. See United States v. Tingle, No. 08-1777, 524 F.3d 839, 840, 2008 WL 1902055, at *1 (8th Cir. May 1, 2008); USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (Suppl. Mar. 3, 2008) (“A reduction ... is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if-an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

The district court’s judgment denying Mr. Thomas any relief pursuant to the new amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

United States v. Orlando Thomas
775 F.3d 982 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Rivera
662 F.3d 166 (Second Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Weeden
412 F. App'x 889 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Brawner
District of Columbia, 2010
United States v. Kelvin Dorden
Seventh Circuit, 2010
United States v. Dorden
373 F. App'x 628 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Vanness
District of Columbia, 2010
United States v. Barksdale
District of Columbia, 2010
United States v. Eric Miller
366 F. App'x 717 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Curry
606 F.3d 323 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Eric Curry
Sixth Circuit, 2010
United States v. Peyton
680 F. Supp. 2d 27 (District of Columbia, 2010)
United States v. Collier
581 F.3d 755 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Eddie
341 F. App'x 906 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jeremy Lockett
341 F. App'x 129 (Sixth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Richardson
339 F. App'x 60 (Second Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Martinez
Second Circuit, 2009
United States v. Hockaday
330 F. App'x 26 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
524 F.3d 889, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9812, 2008 WL 1969739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-keifer-thomas-ca8-2008.