United States v. Jermaine Arrington
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) - [3987169-2] -- Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stephen C. Moss. [4056051] [12-3768]
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3768
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jermaine J. Arrington
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 16, 2013
Filed: July 18, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jermaine Arrington appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
1
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
Appellate Case: 12-3768
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/18/2013 Entry ID: 4056051
(FSA). We conclude that Arrington was not entitled to a reduction, as his Guidelines
sentencing range was calculated based on his unlawful possession of a firearm, see
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, which was not affected by any provision of the FSA. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court may reduce prison term of defendant who has been
sentenced based on sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
Sentencing Commission); United States v. Tolliver, 570 F.3d 1062, 1066-67 (8th Cir.
2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) allows sentence reduction only when amendment lowers
applicable Guidelines range).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 12-3768
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/18/2013 Entry ID: 4056051
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?