## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1871 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. U LYSSES W I L L I A MS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 4:04- cr -40021- MJ R- 3

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge . S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 28, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . In 200 4 the defenda n t pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to dist ribute c ra ck coca i ne. Because ofthe am ount o fcr ack i nvol ved, his bas e o f f ense l eve l w as 3 6
. U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1
. 1 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 4 )
. T he j ud g e r e duced the l eve l to 33 bec ause the defendant had accepte d res p o n s ib i l i t y f o r h i s c r i me . Hi s g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c i ng r an g e, b as ed o n tha t o f f en se l ev ela nd a C atego r y VI cri m i nal hi sto ry, was 235 to 29 3 m onths, and the j ud ge2 N o. 12

- 1871
se nt enced hi m t o the b o tt o m fi g ur e. Be ca us e th e defe nd ant w as a car eero f f ender, the j ud ge w as re quir ed, i n th e fi rs t i nstance , to cal cul ate the gui del i nes s entence fro m the car eer-offender gui del i ne tabl e, U
. S. S. G. § 4B 1.1 ( b)
. But the defe nd ant’ s ba se off ense l eve l i n the tabl e was only34 , and i t decr eas ed to 31 because o fhi s a ccepti ng r es p onsibi l i ty f orhi s cr i m i nal conduct

— an d i n ca lculatin g th e guid eli ne s range f or a car eero f f ender t h e j ud ge i s r equi re d to use the hi gher o fthe o f f en se l ev eli n the c ar ee r - o f f en dert ab l e o r the offense l eve l i n the gui del i ne thatwould be appli cable w er e t h e d efe n d an t n o t a ca re er offe n d er . U nited Sta tes v. Was hi ngt on , 61 8 F. 3d 869, 87 0- 71 and n. 7 ( 8th Ci r . 2 01 0) , a nd c as es cit ed th er e. I n thi s ca se the hi g he r levelwas the o ne i n the l at te r g ui del i ne

— 33 ( after th e 3-l evel red u c t ion for acc ep tan ce of respon sibil ity), ver sus o nl y 3 1 i n the car eer - off ender gui del i ne. Th e de f e nd a ntmo v e d the j ud g e under1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 82 ( c) ( 2) t o r edu ce hi s 2 35

- m o nth s en te nc e, a nd the j ud ge re du ced i t t o 188 m onths. H e ba sed the re d u c ti on on the Sen tenci ng Com m i ssi on’ s Am endm ent 7 50 to t he g ui de l i ne s . T ha twa s a mi s t a k e , b e c a us e tha ta men dm ent d id no t r edu ce the o f f en se l ev elf o r the wei g ht ( 1. 3 k i l o g r ams) o fc r ac kthat the de f en dan t ha d c o nspi re d t o dist ribute. Bu t anothe r am endm ent to the guidel i nes

— A m endm ent 7 06, U
. S. S.G. A pp . C Supp., pp. 221- 26 ( 2007 )

— re tr oa c tiv ely red u c ed th e b as e o ffen se lev els i n sec ti on 2 D1. 1( c) f orcr ack- coca i ne o f f enders , a nd by a happy co i nci dence thi s r educed t h e d efendant’s bas e o f f en se l ev elunde r tha t se ct i o n b y the s ame a m o unt th at th e j ud ge ha d red uc ed it un d er his m istaken i nt er-N o. 12

- 1871 3 pr e t a t i o n o fAmen dme nt7 50

— f r o m 36 to 34 . C f. U nited St at es v. Tayl or, 62 7 F
. 3d 674, 67 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A s a r es ul t th e defend an t’s t o ta l o f f en se l ev el( whi chmight be b ett erte rm ed hi s “ net” off ense lev el) , wh i ch i ncl ud ed the 3-p oi nt r educti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty that the j ud ge had gi ven hi m , fel l fro m 33 to 31
. That i n turn re du ced hi s g uidel i nes s entenci ng r ange to 188 to 2 35 months , a nd a g ain the j udg e g av e hi m the sente nce a t the bo tto m o fthe ra nge. The defe nd ant m ove d fo r a furtherr educti on, w hi ch w as re fused. There w as no pos sibl e ba si s f ora further r edu ct i o n, a s hi s law y erpo i nt s o uti n a n A nd ers brief, and w e wri te only to r efi ne the st ate m ent i n our o pini on i n U nited St at e s v. Fo r m an , 553 F.3d 585 , 589 (7th C ir. 2009) (pe r c ur i am) , tha t “Am en dm en t 70 6 pr o vi des no benefi t to car eeroffenders. ” S ee al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox , 573 F. 3d 441, 45 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09); U n i ted S ta tes v. M a teo , 560 F. 3d 152, 15 5 (3 d C i r. 20 09)
. Pass age s i n other case s sta te cor re ctl y that Am endm ent 7 06 does not aff ect a sente nce ca l cul ate d und erthe car eer - off ender gui del i ne, U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s s on , 583 F.3d 728 , 731 (9th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez , 57 2 F
. 3d 8 2, 85 ( 2d C ir. 20 09 ); U nited S ta tes v . Sha rkey , 54 3 F
. 3d 1236 , 12 39 ( 10th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 54 1 F.3d 1323, 13 27 (11 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. Tingle, 52 4 F
. 3d 839, 84 0 ( 8th Ci r. 20 08) ( per curi am ), b u t coul d be m i sund er sto od to a g r ee wi ththe s ta te m en t i n F o r man t h at a ca re er off ender cannot benefi t fro m the am endm ent. That s tat em en ti s i mpr e c i s e , a s the p r e s e ntc a s e s ho ws , b e c a us e no t al l ( th o ug h c er ta i nl y mos t) c ar ee r offen der s ar e se nten ced on th e basis of th e offen se levels i n th e career-4 N o. 12

- 1871 off ender gui del i ne, and the defe nd ant i n thi s ca se w as one w ho was not
. But he was a ca re er offe n d er , an d th is sh o ws tha t th e di ctum i n For m an ( and othercas es) that “A m endm ent 7 06 provi des no benefi t t o car eer off enders, ” whil e g ener al l y c or re ct, i s no t i nvar i abl y s o. “G en erall y correct” i s w orth e m p ha sizing, how ever, as w e hav e f ound onl y o ne r epor te d a p p ell ate cas e pr i or to the pres en t one in w h ic h a career offen d er’s sente nci ng r ange d ecr eas ed as a r esul t o fa re tr oac ti ve am en d m en t t o s ec tio n 2D 1.1 : U nited S t a t es v. Jon es, 596 F
. 3d 273, 275-77 (5th Cir. 2010). I n two other re port ed case s a r etr oac tiv e am endm ent t o that sect i on r educed a ca re ero f f ender’s offense l eve l, but, unl i ke Jo nes a nd th e p re se n t c a s e, n ot h is gu id elin es ran ge : U nited Sta tes v. Tayl or, sup ra , 627 F.3d at67 6; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Was hi ngt on , sup ra , 61 8 F
. 3d at 870– 73 . In these c ase s, atthe or i gi nal sente nci ng the defe nd ant’ s off ense l eve l und erse c tio n 2D1. 1 e xc e e de d h i s o f f e ns e l e v e l i n t he s e c t i o n 4 B1
. 1( b) t a bl e as a c a r e e r o f f e nd e r ; a nd s o , a s i n o urc a s e , Amen dm ent 7 06 l owered the defe nd ant’s o f f ense l eve l
. But as a re sul t, the car eer - off en d er o f f ense l eve l now exceeded th e s e c t i o n 2 D1
. 1 o f f e n s e l e v e l, a n d a s a r e s u l t o ft he speci fi cati on o fo f f ense l eve l s i n Tabl e 4 B1. 1( b) nei ther defe nd ant’ s s entenci ng r ange decreased and so nei ther w as el i gibl e f orr el i efunder 18 U
. S. C. § 35 82 ( c) ( 2)
. These case s a re si m i l ar to t h e presentcas e i nsof ar as the defen d an t s ’ offe n se lev els d id decl i ne ev en tho ugh they w er e ca re ero f f enders, but ar e co nsi ste nt with th e st at ementi n For m an because th e d efendants’ gui del i nes r anges di d not decr eas e a nd as a re su l t theyN o. 12

- 1871 5 did notbene fi t fro m the retr oac ti ve am endm ents, as th e defen dan t i n thi s ca se a nd the de f en dan t i n Jo nes di d. Cou ns el ’ s m o ti o n t o wi th dr aw i s g ran ted a nd the ap p ea l is D IS MIS S ED .

9- 21- 12