FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1299 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 65 3- CR-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EVERETT W ILLIAMS, a.k .a. Ed Bu sh , a.k .a. Edd ie Jo e, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 30, 200 8) Before TJO FL AT and BL ACK , C ircuit Judg es, and REST AN I, Judge. * PE R CU RIA M:2

A ft er ple ad ing gui lty

to tw o c ount s of

pos se ssi on o f cr ac k c oc ai ne w ith in te ntto de li ve r, Ever et t Will ia m s was sen te nc edto 14 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, a
se nte nc e at

the bottom

of the the n- ap pli ca

ble se nte nc ing gui de lin e range . Whil e Kimbrough v. U

nited Sta tes , — U
. S. —, 128 S
. Ct
. 558 ( 2007 ), w as sti ll pe ndi ng be fo re the U nit ed

S tate s S upr em e Co urt, W ill iam s f ile d th is a ppe al c ha lle ngi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to c onsi de r w he the r the dis pari ty be tw ee n th e gui de lin es f or pow de r an d ba se c oc ai ne r es ult ed in a gui de lin e range gr eate r than ne ce ssary to pr om ote the pur

pose s of se nte nc ing in his c as e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a ddr es s W ill iam s’ c ha lle nge to the c ra ck /po w de r dis pari ty

be ca use it w as f or ec los ed by
our pr ec ed en t i n Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 456 F. 3d 13 53, 1366-69 (11th Cir. 20 06 ). O n D ec em

be r 10, 200 7, the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n in Ki m brough , whic h im

pli ci tly ove rr ule d our de ci sio n in W

il li ams . See Ki m brough , 128 S. Ct
. a t 57 6. S hortly the re af te r, the Co urt r em an de d U nited Sta tes v . Stratton , 519 F. 3d 1 305, 130 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 8) , ac as e in whic h th e de fe ndant r ai se d ac la im ide nti ca l t o th e one W ill iam s r ai se s he re . A ft er not ing the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d ( 1)
re j ec te d it s auth or ity

to co nsi de r the c ra ck

/po w de r dis pari ty

a t se nte nc ing and ( 2) had not in dicated whether it would have entered the sam e sentence if it had authorityto do so , w e re m anded the case to the district court “ for the lim ited3

purpos e of re sentencing [the defendant] in ligh t of Ki m brough .” Id
. at 1 30 6- 07
. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d: [A ] s this is a lim ited rem and to perm it the district court to reconsid er the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s inli ght

of the S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Ki m brough , S tr attonm ay not r e- ar gue oth er

iss ue s a lr ea dy

de ci de d or necessarily

decided during h is two prior sentencings th at either w ere af fi rm ed on d ir ec t a

ppe al or c oul d have be en , but

w er e not , r ai se d by him dur ing his dir ec t a

ppe al s. H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay , if it w ish es to do s o, c om

bin e thi s r es en te nc ing pr oc ee din g onr em an d w ithany a ddi tio na l pr oc ee din g th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ay de te rmine is ap pr opr iate in lig ht o f the r etro ac tiv e ap pli catio n of A m en dm en t 70 6 to th e cra ck -co cai ne gu id el in es effec ti ve Marc h 3 , 20 08
. Id
. at 1 30 7 (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)
. The sam e re sult is app ropriate in this case. In light of Ki m brough , W illiam s’ sentence w as procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to treat the 100:1 sent encing ratio between c rack and po wder cocaine sentences as ad vi so ry . See G all v. U

nited Sta tes , — U
. S. —, 128 S
. Ct
. 586 , 597 ( 2007 ) (significant procedural err ors at sentencing inclu de “ treating the Guidelines as
m an dator y ”)
. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a ddr es s whe the r it w oul d have im posed th e sam e sentence had it been fr ee to treat the crac k/po wder disparity as advis or y . T he c ourt di d in dic at e that W ill iam s de se rv ed ase nte nc e ab ove the
m andatory

m inim um term of 120 m onth s’ incarce ration; however, it is not clear whether the court would have entertained a sentence of less than 140 m onth s had4

it tr eate d th e Se nte nc ing Guid el ine s a s whol ly a dvi sor y . C onse que ntl y , w e re m an d the c as e to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or the li m ite d purp ose of

r es en te nc ing W ill iam s in lightof Ki m brough
. Se e Stratton , 519 F
. 3d at 13 07. T he Co urt i s f re e to c om

bin e the resentencing proceeding with any addition al proceeding the district court m ay de te rmine appr opr iate in lig ht o f the r etro ac tiv e ap pli catio n of A m en dm en t 70 6 to the c ra ck -c oc ai ne gui de lin es . REVERSED AND REMANDED.