United States v. James Poole

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Diana E. Murphy Granting [4349249-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Forest David Eastman., (UNPUBLISHED) [4385537] [15-3516]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3516
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Edward Poole
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
____________
Submitted: April 1, 2016
Filed: April 6, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Edward Poole appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We agree with the district court that

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 15-3516

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385537

Poole was not eligible for a reduction, because the court’s original downward variance
to 120 months (prior to an additional substantial assistance reduction) was greater than
the reduction authorized by Amendment 782. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) (court
may not reduce prison term to less than minimum of amended Guidelines range, but
if original sentence was less than Guidelines range due to substantial assistance,
reduction comparably less than amended Guidelines range may be appropriate);
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (§ 1B1.10(b)(2) confines extent of
reduction authorized under § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Logan, 710 F.3d 856, 860
(8th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) reduction may not be to term below minimum of
amended Guidelines range unless sentence being reduced was below then-applicable
range pursuant to substantial-assistance motion). We reject Poole’s pro se argument
that Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) announced a new rule that
should be applied retroactively to him, as the argument is not properly raised in a
section 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (Supreme Court decision is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2)
motion, as it is not retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3516

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385537