Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03164/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Desmond Fields
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 24, 2010*

Decided July 14, 2010

Before

      FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

      ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

      JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

   

No. 08‐3164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

DESMOND FIELDS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.

No. 2:01 CR 185

James T. Moody,

Judge.

O R D E R

Desmond Fields appeals from a district court order reducing his prison sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  Fields wanted a greater reduction, but the court concluded

that it was not authorized to go any lower.  We affirm.

Fields pleaded guilty in 2002 to four counts of using a phone to facilitate distributing

powder and crack cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); 18 U.S.C. § 2.  With a total offense level of

37 and a criminal history category of I, his advisory guideline range on those charges was

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 08-3164 Document: 26 Filed: 07/14/2010 Pages: 2
No. 08‐3164 Page 2

210 to 262 months.  The district court imposed four consecutive sentences of 48 months—the

statutory maximum for the offense, 21 U.S.C. § 843(d)(1)—for a total term of 192 months’

imprisonment.  We dismissed his direct appeal.  United States v. Fields, 87 F. App’x 590 (7th

Cir. 2004) (nonprecedential disposition).

In 2008, Fields moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on

Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively decreased by

two levels the base offense level for most crack cocaine offenses.  Fields further argued that

he was entitled to a new sentencing proceeding under the Guidelines in accordance with

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).  He asserted that after Booker, the amended

guideline range is advisory in a sentencing modification under § 3582(c)(2) and does not

restrain a court from imposing a further reduction in light of the factors listed in § 3553(a).

The court agreed that Fields was entitled to a two‐level decrease in base offense level, but

declined to grant any reduction greater than that.  Noting that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide

a basis for reopening sentences for further consideration, the court reduced Fields’s sentence

to 168 months—the bottom of the newly calculated guidelines range—and denied his

request for a resentencing hearing.

Fields filed a pro se notice of appeal more than 10 days after the judgment was

entered, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2005), and the parties dispute whether his filing can

be considered timely under the “mailbox rule,” see FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)(1).  But the Rule 4(b)

time limit for filing notice of appeal in criminal case is not jurisdictional, see United States v.

Neff, — F.3d —, 2010 WL 816629, *3 (7th Cir. 2010), and as Fields cannot prevail in his

appeal in any event, we resolve the case on the merits.

Fields argues that the district court erred in not recognizing that Booker applies to

§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings, in not applying the § 3553(a) factors when reducing sentence, and

in not otherwise reducing his sentence below the amended guideline range.  But Fields

arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 707‐08 (7th Cir.

2009), in which we concluded that Booker does not require a district court to treat the

guidelines as advisory in the limited context of a resentencing under § 3582(c)(2), a statute

legally distinct from § 3553(a), which governs original sentencing proceedings.  “The policy

statements [in U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(3), 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)] make clear,” we went on to explain,

that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not full resentencings and may not result in a sentence

lower than the amended guideline range. . . . ”  Id. at 708.  Fields cites United States v. Hicks,

472 F.3d 1167, 1171‐72 (9th Cir. 2007), the only circuit opinion authorizing district courts to

reduce a sentence below the amended guideline in a resentencing under § 3582(c), but we

explicitly disagreed with that approach in Cunningham.  Cunningham, 554 F.3d at 708 n.3.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 08-3164 Document: 26 Filed: 07/14/2010 Pages: 2