USA v. Edward Calloway, No. 09-4351 (6th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0748n.06 No. 09-4351 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 01, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In July 2000, Edward Calloway pled guilty to possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. The sentencing court determined that Calloway was a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. After a three-level reduction for accepting responsibility, the recommended range for Calloway s sentence was 151 to 188 months. The court sentenced Calloway to 151 months imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission thereafter retroactively amended the sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine. Calloway moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. Section 3582(c)(2) says a defendant may seek a reduction if he was sentenced based on a sentencing range retroactively lowered by the Commission. The district court denied his motion, holding that Calloway was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced based on the career-offender No. 09-4351 U.S. v. Calloway range, which has not been lowered. We review that determination de novo. See United States v. Johnson, 569 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir. 2009). On appeal, Calloway argues that the sentencing court must have based his sentence in part on the crack-possession range, because the career-offender range is advisory under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Calloway also argues that he was not sentenced based on the careeroffender range because he received a reduction for accepting responsibility. Calloway concedes that we rejected these same arguments in United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1537 (2010). We are bound by that decision, and thus reject his arguments. The district court s order denying Calloway s motion is 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.
