United States v. Omar Villareal


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Michael J. Melloy and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3987699-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stephen C. Moss. [4033018] [12-3777]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3777 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Omar Villareal lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: May 3, 2013 Filed: May 7, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In 2009, Omar Villareal was convicted of conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), Appellate Case: 12-3777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2013 Entry ID: 4033018 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and the district court1 sentenced him to 210 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Villareal later moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence pursuant to Guidelines Amendments 748 and 750. The court summarily denied the motion, and he appeals. The district court correctly denied relief, because Amendment 750 did not lower the sentencing range applicable to powder cocaine offenses; and even setting aside its applicability, Amendment 748 is not listed among those amendments that may be applied retroactively to reduce a sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Appellate Case: 12-3777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2013 Entry ID: 4033018

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?