# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 25 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lav el l Will ia m s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

24 , 20 19 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In 20 08 , Lav el l W il li am s pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e at le as t 50
gr am s of co cai ne ba se , an d sh e was se nt en ced to 26 2 m on th s in pr is on co ns is te nt wit h th e pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n in th e pl ea ag reem en t. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (c)( 1) (C) (al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t an d a de fen da nt to st ip ul at e a se nt en ce or se nt en ci ng ran ge in a pl ea ag reem en t). Afte r th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Hug he s v. Uni te d St at es ,13 8 S. Ct

. 17 65 (2 01 8) , W il li am s so ug ht rel ie f un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) —n ot fo r

th e fi rs t t im e—s eek in g a sen te nc e red uc ti on ba se d on Am en dm en ts 75 0 an d 78 2 to th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, whi ch ret ro act iv el y l o wered cert ai n ba se of fen se le ve ls th at were de te rm in ed by dr ug qu an ti ty. In Hug he s, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at

a se nt en ce im

po se d un de r a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) pl ea ag reem en t “ is ‘bas ed o n ’ th e de fen d a n t ’s G u i d el in es ran ge so lo ng as th at ran ge was pa rt of th e fram ewo rk th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on in im po si ng th e se nt en ce or acce pt in g th e ag reem en t.” Hug he s, 13 8 S. Ct

. at 17 75

. The Dis tri ct Co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e Hug he s de ci si on 1 di d no t he lp W il li am s be ca u s e he r se nt en ce was dr iv en en ti rel y by he r cri m in al hi st or y , he r ex po su re to a m an da to ry li fe se nt en ce, an d he r st at us as a care er of fen de r. The Dis tri ct Co ur t d en ie d re li ef, an d Wil li am s ap pe al s.

W e ag ree th at W il li am s was no t en ti tl ed to a se nt en ce red uc ti o n

. See Koo ns

v. Uni te d St a t e s, 13 8 S. Ct

. 17 83 , 17 88 (2 01 8) (h ol di ng “ th at pe ti ti on ers do no t qu al ify fo r se nt en ce red uc ti on s un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) be cau se th ei r se nt en ces were no t ‘bas ed on ’ th ei r lo wered Gui de li ne s r a n g e s” bu t were “ ‘bas ed on ’ th ei r m an da to ry

m in im um s an d on th ei r su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce to th e Gov ern m en t” ); Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 6 88 F.3 d 95 0, 9 55 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (ho ld in g t ha t a p ris on er i s i ne li gi bl e fo r a

se nt en ci ng red uc ti on whe n th e care er-o ffen d e r p r o vi si on of th e Gui de li ne s, no t th e dr ug -q ua nt it y

tab le , det erm in ed th e b as e-o ffen se lev el ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t, an d we g ran t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-