U.S. v. Bell

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s request seeking reduction in his 300-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge involving defendant’s distribution of crack cocaine, after Ct. of Appeals had previously issued limited remand to consider such question, even though defendant had initially argued that said reduction was appropriate under 2007 Amendment to section 2D1.1 of USSG concerning guideline’s reduced ratio for crack cocaine to powder cocaine. Dist. Ct. found that no reduction was warranted because defendant was sentenced after Amendment went into effect and because defendant’s extensive criminal history would not warrant any reduction, and defendant presented no challenge to reasonableness of his sentence. Ct. noted that while defendant had also filed with Dist. Ct. habeas petition on defendant’s claim that his appellate counsel had abandoned him during limited remand and Dist. Ct. had granted defendant habeas relief by allowing defendant to present to Ct. of Appeals his reply on his sentencing issue that was not filed by defendant’s counsel in Dist. Ct. during limited remand, defendant should have filed motion to withdraw prior Appellate Court mandate in his original appeal (instead of filing notice of appeal), since Dist. Ct. had never entered new judgment on defendant’s criminal case so as allow defendant to file any notice of appeal.