United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 97-3374
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                  * District Court for the
                                          * Western District of Missouri.
Sid L. Martin,                            *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                          *
             Appellant.                   *
                                     ___________

                            Submitted: June 3, 1998

                                Filed: June 9, 1998
                                    ___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD
      ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
                              ___________

PER CURIAM.

        In 1993, Martin was convicted of the unregistered manufacture and possession
of destructive devices (Molotov cocktails), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), (f) and
5871. Martin&s Guidelines sentencing range for each count was 135-168 months; the
district court1 sentenced Martin to a total of 151 months’ imprisonment, composed of
a 76-month sentence on the manufacture count and a consecutive 75-month sentence

      1
        The Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
on the possession count. Subsequently, Martin&s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was
granted, because each offense carried a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years. See
26 U.S.C. § 5871. The district court2 resentenced Martin to concurrent 120-month
sentences of imprisonment on each count.

       Martin argues that the district court improperly “restructured” his sentence by
increasing the number of months on each count. We conclude that Martin&s argument
lacks merit, as the resentencing court could not impose a lower sentence absent a valid
basis for departure. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) (where statutory maximum sentence is
less than minimum of Guidelines range, statutory maximum sentence shall be
Guidelines sentence); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) (court shall impose sentence within
Guidelines range unless court finds there exists aggravating or mitigating circumstances
not addressed by Guidelines). We note that the court properly imposed the 120-month
sentences concurrently. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c); see also United States v. Buchanan,

, 147-49 (10th Cir. 1987).

      Martin also argues that his sentence violates the Constitution&s Double Jeopardy
Clause, but as he did not raise this argument before the district court, we decline to
address it. See United States v. Marsanico, 

, 668 (8th Cir. 1995).

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.


      2
        The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

                                          -2-