USA v. Forge, No. 08-50268 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50268 Summary Calendar November 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CASEY LEON FORGE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:02-CR-25-ALL Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Casey Leon Forge, federal prisoner # 60972-080, pleaded guilty in 2002, pursuant to a written agreement, to possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Forge appeals the denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion in which he argued that his sentence should be reduced based on retroactive amendments to the Guidelines for crack cocaine. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 No. 08-50268 Forge s argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion without first appointing counsel because the right to counsel attached under the advisory sentencing scheme is unavailing. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010); United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009). A motion for reduction of sentence is not an ancillary matter under the Criminal Justice Act, and Forge has no constitutional right to appointed counsel for the purpose of bringing a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.