United States v. Clinton Allen, No. 08-4009 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c) affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-4009 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Clinton B. Allen, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 18, 2009 Filed: January 6, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Clinton Allen (Allen) appeals following the district court s1 reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines related to cocaine base or crack cocaine. Allen was originally sentenced at the bottom of his then-applicable Guidelines range. In resentencing Allen under the crack cocaine amendments, the district court reduced Allen s sentence to the bottom of the revised Guidelines range. On appeal, Allen contends the court should have imposed an even lower sentence. 1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Upon careful review, we find no error. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir.) (deciding, where the defendant was originally sentenced within the applicable Guidelines range, and in the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding received a sentence at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to further reduction based upon the § 3553(a) factors, and the district court correctly determined it lacked authority to reduce the sentence below the bottom of the amended Guidelines range unless defendant was originally sentenced below the original Guidelines range), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009). To the extent Allen argues that the court should have held a section 3583(c)(2) hearing, the argument lacks merit. See id. (declaring the district court is not required to hold a hearing in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding). The judgment of the district court 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.
