Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03173/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Anfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted January 21, 2010

Decided January 21, 2010

Before

        JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

        JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

        MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No.  09‐3173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANFIELD,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.

No. 2:05 cr 53

Rudy Lozano,

Judge.

O R D E R

Christopher Anfield pleaded guilty in 2005 to possessing five or more grams of

cocaine base with intent to distribute.  See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).  After determining that he

was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court sentenced him to 168 months’

imprisonment.

Anfield moved in 2008 to have his prison term reduced to 140 months.  The

November 2007 amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 reduced the base offense levels for most

crack cocaine offenses and had retroactive effect.  See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL,

supp. to app. C, amends. 706, 711; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).  Anfield argued that those

amendments gave the district court authority to adjust his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3173 Document: 8 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3173 Page 2

§ 3582(c)(2), which permits a court to reduce a term of imprisonment that was “based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”

In rejecting that contention, the district court ruled that Anfield’s guidelines range

was established by his status as a career offender—not by § 2D1.1—and thus § 3582(c)(2)

did not apply, because his prison term was not based on a sentencing range thereafter

lowered by the Commission.

Anfield filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has concluded that the

appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Anfield did not respond to counsel’s motion.  See CIR. R. 51(b).  We confine our review to

the potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.  See United States v. Schuh,

289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers arguing that the district court erred in concluding that it could not

reduce Anfield’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2).  But that provision is available only if the term

of imprisonment was based on a sentencing range that has since been lowered.  Anfield was

sentenced as a career offender, and the amendments to § 2D1.1 provide him no benefit.  See

United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399‐400 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d

585, 589‐90 (7th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Case: 09-3173 Document: 8 Filed: 01/21/2010 Pages: 2