United States v. David Lee Anderson, No. 10-2371 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to recalculate and reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c) based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2371 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. David Lee Anderson, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 4, 2010 Filed: November 4, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. David Lee Anderson appeals the district court s1 denial of his motions to recalculate and reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon de novo review, we find no error. See United States v. Baylor, 556 F.3d 672, 673 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (standard of review); United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (affirming denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion for resentencing because Amendment 709 is not a covered amendment under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to which 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. retroactive treatment may be given); United States v. Walsh, 26 F.3d 75, 76-77 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 govern whether Guidelines amendments shall apply retroactively). Anderson s alternative argument for recalculation is also without merit. 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.
