United States v. George Brown, No. 09-2423 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 706 affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-2423 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. George E. Brown, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: March 16, 2010 Filed: March 26, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. George Brown appeals following the district court s1 reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 706, related to cocaine base. Brown--who was originally sentenced to 240 months in prison, in the middle of his original Guidelines range--was resentenced to 192 months in prison, in the middle of his amended Guidelines range. On appeal, Brown challenges the extent of the sentence reduction, as well as aspects of his trial, the original sentencing procedures, and the resentencing procedures. 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Upon consideration of the arguments raised in both counsel s brief and Brown s pro se brief, we find no basis for reversal. See United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir.) (discussing narrow scope of sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) and inapplicability of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); district court correctly determined it lacked authority to reduce sentence below amended Guidelines range unless defendant was originally sentenced below original Guidelines range; district court not required to hold hearing in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009); see also United States v. Harris, 574 F.3d 971, 972 (8th Cir. 2009) (proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute full resentencing). Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, we affirm, and we deny Brown s pending motion as moot. ______________________________ -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.
