United States v. Mark Geralds , 338 F. App'x 557 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2496
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,            *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Missouri.
    Mark A. Geralds, also known as Hanif, *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant - Appellant.           *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 11, 2009
    Filed: July 30, 2009
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Mark Geralds appeals from his resentencing conducted pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2), which amended the crack cocaine Guidelines. We affirm.
    Geralds pled guilty to knowingly attempting to possess with intent to distribute
    cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    . A sentencing
    hearing was held before the Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr.,1 at which the
    government called several witnesses and Geralds testified. Shortly thereafter, Judge
    1
    The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
    Limbaugh took senior status and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Catherine
    D. Perry. After reviewing a transcript of the sentencing hearing held before Judge
    Limbaugh, Judge Perry conducted a second sentencing hearing and sentenced Geralds
    to 360 months’ imprisonment. Geralds appealed, and this court reversed and
    remanded his sentence with instructions that either Judge Limbaugh should conduct
    the sentencing or the testimony presented at the first sentencing hearing should be
    presented to Judge Perry prior to resentencing.
    On remand, Judge Limbaugh conducting the resentencing. Judge Limbaugh
    concluded that Geralds was responsible for a drug quantity amount of at least 500
    grams of cocaine base (crack), but less than 1.5 kilograms, and set Geralds’s base
    Guidelines offense level at 36. The court then added two levels for use of a firearm
    in connection with the offense and granted a two level reduction for acceptance of
    responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 36. Geralds was determined to have
    a criminal history category of V, resulting in a recommended Guidelines range of 292
    to 365 months’ imprisonment. After discussing the § 3553(a) factors, the court
    sentenced Geralds to 330 months’ imprisonment, roughly the middle of his Guidelines
    range. Geralds again appealed his sentence and this court affirmed.
    After the Sentencing Commission retroactively amended the crack cocaine
    Guidelines, Geralds filed a motion for a reduction of sentence. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). The district court granted his motion and calculated his amended
    Guidelines range as 235 to 293 months. The district court once again sentenced
    Geralds to a middle-of-the-range sentence of 260 months’ imprisonment. Geralds
    appeals this latest sentence, arguing that the district court erred by failing to fully
    consider the required factors under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    We recently addressed a similar claim in United States v. Clark, 
    563 F.3d 722
    (8th Cir. 2009). In Clark, we explained that “the modification of a defendant’s
    sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) does not constitute a full resentencing.” Id. at 724.
    -2-
    The § 3553(a) factors, however, still play “a role in sentence modification proceedings
    under 3582(c)” and “still guide the decision to modify a sentence and the selection of
    an appropriate, amended sentence within the new range.” Id. We then went on to
    approve the district court’s decision to modify the original top-of-the-range sentence
    to a sentence at the top of the defendant’s new Guidelines range. In so doing, we
    reiterated that: (1) “a § 3582(c)(2) sentence modification proceeding is not a full
    resentencing;” (2) “any possible amendment in a case like [the defendant’s] is
    constrained within an amended Guidelines range;” and (3) “an initial sentencing court
    had already once considered and provided an adequate explanation of the § 3553(a)
    factors by the time a defendant seeks amendment.” Id. at 725.
    These same considerations instruct our decision here. Geralds was last
    sentenced in the middle of his Guidelines range; a sentence that was affirmed by this
    court. After granting his motion for a reduction of sentence based on § 3582(c)(2),
    the district court once again sentenced Geralds to the middle of his amended
    Guidelines range. The district court was intimately familiar with the circumstances
    surrounding Geralds’s case and had previously had occasion to explain its decision
    to sentence Geralds in the middle of the Guidelines. “Based on the district court's
    statements at [Geralds’s] initial sentencing and its determination that sentences [in the
    middle] of the respective Guidelines ranges were appropriate following both the
    [previous] sentencing and the § 3582 proceedings, we believe the court fully
    considered and more than adequately addressed the relevant § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
    
    563 F.3d at 724-25
    . The district court did not err.
    We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2496

Citation Numbers: 338 F. App'x 557

Filed Date: 7/30/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023