### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1 

# United States Court of App eals

F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 October19 , 20 09 B efo re D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 07- 3373 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A ,

P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. JO SH U A M . L ID D E L L ,

D ef endant-Appellant
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o f Illino is. N o. 06 CR 4000 8 J. Ph il G ilbe rt, Judg e .

O R D E R J oshua Lidd el l p l ed gui l ty to tw o counts ofposs ess i on with the i ntent to dist ribute fi ve gram s or m ore of a m ixtu re cont aining coc ain e base. Th e govern m en t ap p ealed Lid d ell ’s se n te n c e, an d w e va c at ed th e sen te n c e a n d rem an d ed for fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs . U nited Sta tes v. Liddel l , 4 92 F
. 3d 92 0 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 )
. Onr emand, the di st r i ctc o ur t ca l cul at ed th e se nt en cing gui del i nes ra nge f or each count separ ate l y a nd co ncl ud ed that the guidel i nes’ car eero ffender pr o vi si o ns r es ul te d i n a r an g e o f2 62 t o 3 27months ’ i m pr i so nm en t o n the fi r stc o unt . T he dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Li dd el l to 24 0 m onths’ im pri sonm ent on the fi rs t co unt and 87 m onths’ im p ris on m en t o n th e s ec on d co u n t, to ru n co n c u rre n tly
.N o. 07
- 3373 Page 2

L id d ell th en ap p ea led
. W e up h eld th e s en te n c e im p os ed on C ou n t O n e. U nited Sta tes v. Liddel l , 543 F. 3d 877, 87 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. W i th r espectto Count Tw o, the parti es sti pu l ate d th ati n l i g hto fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 558 (2007), Li ddel l s ho ul d r ec ei ve a l i m i te d r emand. We the r efo r e di r ec te d a lim it ed r emand o n the se co nd c o unti n a cc o r dan ce w i ththe pro ce dur e we s etf o r thi n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d 74 6, 74 8-4 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), ask in g t h e d i s t r i c t co u rtw h et h er it w ou ld h av e g ive n L id d ell a furth er redu ction in his sen ten ce h ad i t know n of i ts au th ority to d o so un d er Kim b r ough
. A fterwe or dere d a l i m i ted r em and, Liddellfi l ed an 18 U
. S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) m oti on f or a r educti on i n hi s sentence on Count Tw o i n l i ght ofn ew , retr oac ti ve cra ck coca i ne gui del i nes. Th e d istri ct cou rt cons idered that m otion along w ith our li m ited rem an d qu ery, th e proc ed ure we s ug g es te d i n Taylo r . The dist ri ct courtconcl ud ed that Liddel l ’ s new gui del i ne r ange w as 5 7t o 7 1 mo nths an d tha ta s t a t ut o r y fi v e - y e a r mi ni mum a pp l i e d. In r e s po ns e t o the 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) m oti on, the dist ri ct c ourtr educed L i dd el l ’ s s entence o n count tw o to 60 m onths’ im p risonm en t. B ecau se th at is th e low est sen ten ce p ossible in li gh t of th e ap p li cab le statut ory m an d at or y m in im u m , see 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (B), th e d istri ct c o urt has resp ond ed to our Taylo r re m and by s tat i ng tha t i t coul d no t i m pose an eve n l ower sente nce under the autho ri ty gr anted i t by Kim b r ough
. W e invi ted bo th par ti es to fi l e sta tem ents as to the a pp ro pri ate di sposi ti on o fthe appeal i n l i ght o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on byOctobe r 5, 2009 , and ne i ther si de has chose n to do so
. T ha t is un d erstan d able, as th e resolution is straightforw ard
. W e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on. Dist ri ct cour t j ud ges re m ai n bound b y sta tutor y m i ni m um ter m s eve n aft er Kim b r ough
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo r m an , 55 3 F
. 3d 585, 58 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. As a r esul t, the dist ri ct cour t co uld notr educe Liddel l ’ s s entence o n Count Tw o bel ow the 60 m onths to w hi ch i t had alr ea d y low er ed th e s en te n c e. T h e jud gm en t o f th e d ist ric t c ou rtis AFFI RM ED
.