Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03596/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
Montrivel Deon Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3596

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Montrivel Deon Woods, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2008 

Filed: July 11, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Montrivel Deon Woods (Woods) appeals his 248 month sentence for conspiracy

to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, after having previously been

convicted of two felony drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B); 846 and 851. We remand for resentencing.

I. BACKGROUND

Woods contends his sentence was unreasonable, in part, because, although the

district court sentenced Woods pursuant to the sentencing guidelines in effect at the

time of his sentencing, the 100:1 crack/powder ratio then in effect “was expected to

Appellate Case: 07-3596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2008 Entry ID: 3450838
-2-

be partially rectified in a matter of days by an amendment to the advisory guidelines.”

The district court recognized the pending amendment and stated it was “sympathetic

to the fact [the guidelines] could be changed.” The district court explained Woods’s

sentencing range under the current guidelines was 292 to 365 months, and the range

under the proposed amendment would be 235 to 293 months. The district court noted

there was an overlap between these two ranges: 292 months. Thus, the district court

initially calculated a “reasonable sentence” for Woods at 292 months, and emphasized

it would impose the chosen 292 months “even if . . . Congress were to adopt the new

guidelines . . . .” The district court next granted the government’s United States

Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 5K1.1 departure motion for substantial assistance,

denied Woods’s motion for a downward variance, and sentenced Woods to 248

months imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION

Woods challenges the reasonableness of his sentence in light of Kimbrough v.

United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007) and the retroactive crack/powder

guidelines amendments. The crack/powder ratio amendment, Amendment 711

modifying drug tables at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, was published with an effective date of

November 1, 2007, and became retroactive as of March 3, 2008. See U.S.S.G. app.

C, amend. 711 (Supp. 2007) & amend. 713 (Supp. 2008). 

Woods’s case is logically indistinguishable from the sentence we recently

remanded for reconsideration in United States v. Whiting, 522 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.

2008). In Whiting, the district court also noted an overlap between the sentencing

ranges under the current and pending guidelines, imposed a sentence within that

range, and stated it would impose the same sentence “whether or not the pending

amendment became law.” Id. at 852. We explained, “When an amendment to the

guidelines becomes retroactive during the appellate proceedings on a case, it may be

remanded to the district court for determination of whether the amendment warrants

Appellate Case: 07-3596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2008 Entry ID: 3450838
-3-

a sentence reduction.” Id. at 853 (citations omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

We concluded: 

Such a remand is appropriate here because the sentencing court did not

have the benefit of the amendments in their final form and those

amendments affect some of the § 3553(a) factors which are to be

considered in imposing a sentence, including the sentencing range in

§ 3553(a)(4).

Id. We “remand[ed] the case to the district court for consideration of whether [the]

sentence should be modified in light of [the] retroactive amendments to the guidelines

affecting crack.” Id. Given the similarities between Whiting and Woods’s case, it

would be inconsistent to treat the matters differently.

III. CONCLUSION 

We remand Woods’s sentence “to the district court for consideration of whether

[Woods’s] sentence should be modified in light of [the] retroactive amendments to the

guidelines affecting crack.” Id.

______________________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3596 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2008 Entry ID: 3450838