United States of America v. Herman Paige, Jr., also known as Joe

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2063
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Herman Paige, Jr., also known as Joe
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 4, 2012
Filed: October 16, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Herman Paige appeals the extent of the 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction that the district court granted him. Prior to this reduction, his sentence1
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

included a 240-month prison term on a charge of conspiring to distribute cocaine base
(crack), and an 84-month consecutive term on four counts of distributing crack, for
a total drug sentence of 324 months (with two additional consecutive 60-month terms
for firearm offenses). Based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, the court reduced the distribution sentences to 22 months, for a total drug
sentence of 262 months (with the firearm sentences unchanged). We find no abuse
of discretion in the reduction, see United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir.
2010) (standard of review), as the resulting sentence is at the bottom of the amended
Guidelines range, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.3) (if prison term was within
Guidelines range applicable at time of sentencing, court may reduce prison term to
term no less than minimum term provided by amended Guidelines range). We reject
Paige’s argument that, in considering the reduction, the court should have treated the
Guidelines as advisory. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010).
We also reject Paige’s ineffective-assistance claim, as there is no right to counsel in
a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding, see United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d 1093, 1094
(8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); and we note that the district court was not required to
hold a hearing, see United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, subject
to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a
petition for certiorari.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --