United States v. Herman Paige, Jr., No. 12-2063 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. The extent of the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c) sentence reduction granted defendant was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ October 15, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2063 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Herman Paige, Jr., also known as Joe lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2012 Filed: October 16, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Herman Paige appeals the extent of the 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction that the district court1 granted him. Prior to this reduction, his sentence 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. included a 240-month prison term on a charge of conspiring to distribute cocaine base (crack), and an 84-month consecutive term on four counts of distributing crack, for a total drug sentence of 324 months (with two additional consecutive 60-month terms for firearm offenses). Based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the court reduced the distribution sentences to 22 months, for a total drug sentence of 262 months (with the firearm sentences unchanged). We find no abuse of discretion in the reduction, see United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), as the resulting sentence is at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.3) (if prison term was within Guidelines range applicable at time of sentencing, court may reduce prison term to term no less than minimum term provided by amended Guidelines range). We reject Paige s argument that, in considering the reduction, the court should have treated the Guidelines as advisory. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010). We also reject Paige s ineffective-assistance claim, as there is no right to counsel in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding, see United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); and we note that the district court was not required to hold a hearing, see United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
