United States v. Kevin Paige

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Kevin Paige

381 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2010

Docket09-2707

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 F. App'x 639 (United States v. Kevin Paige) 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. Kevin Paige, 381 F. App'x 639 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Kevin Paige was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise to distribute cocaine base and additional firearms and money laundering offenses, he *640 was sentenced to 780 months of imprisonment (600 of which were for the drug offense). In 2008 Paige moved for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The district court 1 granted Paige’s motion and reduced his offense level by two levels, resulting in a modified guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court then resentenced Paige to 365 months imprisonment. Paige appeals, alleging that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to the sentencing criteria under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He seeks a reduced sentence of no more than 292 months imprisonment.

A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing, Dillon v. United, States, —, U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), and the district court’s authority to modify a sentence under that section is limited. United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.2009). Paige’s initial and reduced sentences were both at the high end of their respective guideline ranges. See United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir.2009) (affirming a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing at the top of the guideline range when the initial sentence was also at the top of the guideline range). The district court indicated in its order, albeit briefly, that it was considering the § 3553(a) factors. This was sufficient for a resentencing under § 3582(c)(2). Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2692; Clark, 563 F.3d at 725 (lengthy discussions of § 3553(a) factors are not required in a resentencing).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

After Kevin Paige was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise to distribute cocaine base and additional firearms and money laundering offenses, he *640 was sentenced to 780 months of imprisonment (600 of which were for the drug offense). In 2008 Paige moved for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The district court 1 granted Paige’s motion and reduced his offense level by two levels, resulting in a modified guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court then resentenced Paige to 365 months imprisonment. Paige appeals, alleging that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to the sentencing criteria under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He seeks a reduced sentence of no more than 292 months imprisonment.

A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing, Dillon v. United, States, —, U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), and the district court’s authority to modify a sentence under that section is limited. United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.2009). Paige’s initial and reduced sentences were both at the high end of their respective guideline ranges. See United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir.2009) (affirming a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing at the top of the guideline range when the initial sentence was also at the top of the guideline range). The district court indicated in its order, albeit briefly, that it was considering the § 3553(a) factors. This was sufficient for a resentencing under § 3582(c)(2). Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2692; Clark, 563 F.3d at 725 (lengthy discussions of § 3553(a) factors are not required in a resentencing).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kevin-paige-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack