TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Kevin Paige

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin B. PAIGE, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Paige, 381 F. App'x 639 (8th Cir. 2010)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 22, 2010
Docket
No. 09-2707
Judges
Murphy, Beam, Benton
Citations
381 F. App'x 639
Status
Unpublished

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

After Kevin Paige was convicted of operating a continuing criminal enterprise to distribute cocaine base and additional firearms and money laundering offenses, he *640 was sentenced to 780 months of imprisonment (600 of which were for the drug offense). In 2008 Paige moved for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) and Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The district court 1

granted Paige’s motion and reduced his offense level by two levels, resulting in a modified guideline range of 292 to 365 months. The court then resentenced Paige to 365 months imprisonment. Paige appeals, alleging that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to the sentencing criteria under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). He seeks a reduced sentence of no more than 292 months imprisonment.

A proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not a full resentencing, Dillon v. United, States, —, U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692 , 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), and the district court’s authority to modify a sentence under that section is limited.

United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.2009). Paige’s initial and reduced sentences were both at the high end of their respective guideline ranges.

See United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir.2009) (affirming a § 3582(c)(2) resentencing at the top of the guideline range when the initial sentence was also at the top of the guideline range). The district court indicated in its order, albeit briefly, that it was considering the § 3553(a) factors. This was sufficient for a resentencing under § 3582(c)(2).

Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2692 ;

Clark, 563 F.3d at 725 (lengthy discussions of § 3553(a) factors are not required in a resentencing).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2010: 120102026peak 2010 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Burrell622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Burrell622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) 1,894
United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2009) 23
United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2009) 89

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list