United States v. Billy Davis, No. 08-2282 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. District court did not err in reducing sentence to bottom of amended crack cocaine guideline range under Starks .
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2282 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Billy D. Davis, also known as Lil Spook, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: January 20, 2010 Filed: February 4, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Billy Davis appeals following the district court s1 reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the amendments to the Guidelines related to cocaine base or crack cocaine. Davis was originally sentenced at the bottom of his then-applicable Guidelines range. In resentencing Davis in light of the crack cocaine amendments, the district court reduced Davis s sentence to the bottom of the revised Guidelines range. On appeal, Davis contends that the court should have recalculated 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. his criminal history category in light of Guidelines Amendment 709, and that the court should have imposed a sentence below the revised Guidelines range. Upon careful review, we find no error. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir.) (where defendant was originally sentenced within applicable Guidelines range and in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding received sentence at bottom of amended Guidelines range, defendant was not entitled to further reduction based on § 3553(a) factors), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009); United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (Amendment 709 is not listed amendment to which retroactive treatment may be given), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 290 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
