United States v. Jermaine Arrington


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Raymond W. Gruender and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) - [3987169-2] -- Granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

Download PDF
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Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 16, 2013 Filed: July 18, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.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?