United States v. James Poole


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 Forest David Eastman., (UNPUBLISHED) [4385537] [15-3516]

Download PDF
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 Dodge ____________ Submitted: April 1, 2016 Filed: April 6, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.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

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?