## 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. 11

- 1226 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HA V IS W EBS TER, 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 Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- CR-112

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 19, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . C U D AHY, C i r cu i tJudg e . In thi s ca se, Chavi s W ebst er appe al s a di st r i ctc o ur t o r der g r an tinga g o ve r nm en t m oti o n t o r e du c e h i s s e nt e nc e f o r h i s s ub s t a nt i a l a s s i stan c e t o l a w en for c em en t. See Fed
. R. Crim
. P. 35(b)(2). W ebst erco ntends thatthe dist ri ct c ourte rre d by not c on sid er in g t h e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs w h e n it decl i ned to gr ant the fullr educti on s up posedl y r equeste d byde f en dan t. The ca se pr es en ts i nt er es tingi ss ue s o fthe2 N o. 11

- 1226

This w as a d ow nw ard d eparture from his adv is ory guid e- 1 lines ra ng e of 235 -240 , w hich w a s calcu lated acco rd ing to his of f ense l evel, 33, and his quali fic ati on as a care er off ender. r el at i o n b etwee n U ni t e d S t at e s v . Chapman , 53 2 F
. 3d 625 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd U nite d States v. Shelb y, 5 8 4 F. 3d 74 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. We a ffi r m. On F eb r ua r y 2 5, 2 00 9, de f en dan t W eb st er a nd hi s ass oci ate Ch er i sh J ones sol d he ro i n to an ind ivi du al acti ng as an info rm ant. T h e g ove rnm ent s ubm i tte d thi s e vi dence to a fe deralgr and j ury, and i t r etur ned an i nd i ctm ent a gai nst W ebst er, al l egi ng that h e d i str ibuted h e r o i n i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. I n N o v e mb er 20 09 , W eb st er p l e a d e d gu ilty an d w as su b se q u en tly senten c ed t o 216 m onths i n pri son. I n l i ght o fhi s g uil ty 1 ple a a nd ag re em ent t o provi de substa nti alas si sta nce, the g o v e r nme nta g r e e d t o r e qu e s ta r e du c e d s e ntence i fW ebst erpro vi ded such a ssi sta nce. W ebsteri n f act di d a nd i n No v e mbe r 2 0 1 0 the g o v er nm en tfi l e d a Rule 35( b) m oti on r equesti ng a sente nce r educti on base d on hi s s ubstanti ala ss ista nce i n the i nvest i gat i on an d p ro se c u tio n of ot h er s. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtth en h eld a he aringo n the mot i o n a nd r edu ce d W eb st er ’ s se ntence fro m 21 6 m onths to 168 m onths i n l i ght o fhi s s ubsta nti alas si sta nce. Bu t W eb ste r see ks a furtherr educti on a nd appeal s. A n appeal fro m a Rule 35( b) o rderi s a n appeal fro m an “o ther w i se fi nal se nten c e,” o verwh i ch w e hav e j uri sd ict ion on ly in lim ite d circ u m st an c es . U nited St at e s v. Chapm an , 5 32 F. 3d 62 5, 6 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ci tingU nitedN o. 11

- 1226 3 Sta tes v. M cG ee, 50 8 F .3d 44 2, 44 4 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 07 )); see also 18 U .S.C . § 37 42 (a). It is n ot ou r ro le in R u l e 35 (b ) ap p ea ls to r ev i ew a di strict c o ur t’ s ex er ci se o fi ts di sc r et i o n. See M cG ee, 5 08 F
. 3d at4 44

- 45 ( “[ O]ur j uri sdi ct i o na l mandat e . . . do e s n o te xt e nd t o a di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di scr eti onar y deci si ons re gar ding sente nci ng. ”)
. Our ta sk, i ns te ad, i s to de te r m i ne whethe r a r edu ct i o n i n s en t e n c e w as im p os ed in v iola tio n of th e la w . Id
. As we u n d er st an d it, th e d e f en d an t’s arg u m en t o n ap p ea l is that the di str i ct c ourte rred as a m att ero fl aw wh en i t decl i ned to gr ant the 12 0- m onth r educed sen te n ce r eque st ed byb o th p ar ti es a nd wi th o utc o ns i der i ngthe § 3 553( a) f act or s. Because we have re cogni zed thatas ser ti ons ofm etho dol ogi caler ro r al l ege a m istake of law , w e h av e jur isd ict ion to h ea r d efe n d an t’s ap p ea l. Chapm an , 53 2 F
. 3d at 630 ( “W e ce rt ai nl y hav e j uri sdic

ti on t o consi der whether a di str i ct courti s r equi re d to reevalu ate th e section 3553 sen ten cing factors .
. . . ”).

I. F i r st, i t i s unc l ear w he th erthe pr emi se o fthe defen dan t’ s ar g um en t

— th at th ere w as a requ est for a r edu ce d s en te nc e o f1 20 months

— i s , i n f a c t, t r ue . Fr om o ur r ev i ew o fthe r ec o r d, we ag r ee wi th the g o ve r nm en t that no party had r equeste d a speci fi c se ntence r edu ct i o n. The g o ve r nm en t m ade no s ta te m ents atthe m oti on hea ri ng, and i nstea d res ted o n t h e i nfo rm ati on i n i ts s uppo r tinga ffi dav i t, whi chw as als o s i l en t o n the a m o u n t o f red u c tio n so u gh t. See App e l l e e ’ s Br
. 8 ; Mo t i on H r’ g Tr
. 3.4 N o. 11

- 1226 The re cor d show s that defense counselsi m i l ar l y nev er r e q u e s t e d a r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e o f 1 2 0 mo n ths
. The cl ose st defe nse c ounse l c am e t o m aki ng a re quest was w hen he a s k e d the c o ur t f o r “ a s l a r g e a r e du c ti on a s p ossibl e. ” H r ’ gTr
. 3
. The de f en dan t co nt en ds th atthe re q u es t fo r “a s la rg e a red u c tio nas p os sib le” w as in re f er ence to an ea rl i errequest f ora 120- m onth s entence m ad e a t t h e in itia l se n te n c e h ea rin g. A p p ella n t R ep ly B r. 3. Tak en m ost ch aritably, thes e statem en ts are insu ffi ci ent t o const i tute a r equest f or a s p eci fi c se ntence r e du c t i o n. No to nc e wa s the 1 2 0

- mon th fi gur e u t t e r e d, leaving us perp lexed as to how th e d istri ct cou rt co ul d ha v e c o mm i t t e d a n e r r o r a s a mat t e r ofl aw by d eviating from a non -existen t nu m ber. Defen se c o uns ela t o r ala r g um en t i nt i m at ed that the Rul e 3 5 ( b ) he a r i ng wa s s o b r i e f tha t he wa s un abl e t o r eque sta s pec i fi c r edu ct i o n fi g ur e. The t r an sc r i pt o fthe pr o ce edi ngde m o ns tr at es othe r wi se . Af te r i ndi ca ting that i t would g ra nt the m oti on, but bef or e m aki ng i ts fin al rul i ng, the dist ri ct c ourtper m i tte d defens e co unsel to m ake r em ar ks i n supp or t o fhi s cl i ent. H r’g Tr. 3. A fter re f er enci ng hi s pri orr em ar ks at the s entenci ng hea rin g, d efense cou ns el em p ha sized the ex ten t of his cli e nt ’s coo perat i on a n d the hardshi p his i m pri sonm ent was c au sin g h im an d h is fa m ily. Id
. At n o po i ntwas he int er ru p te d an d h e i n f a c t e n d ed h is re m ar ks w ith “t h at is all I h ave, Your H onor . ” Id
. a t4
. No th i n gab o u tthe hear i ng i nd i cate s that defense counselwas unabl e t o m ake e x p lici t hi s cl i ent’ s desi re f ora re du ced se ntence of12 0 m onths.N o. 11

- 1226 5 W e fi nd , ther ef or e, thatt h e d efendant did notr equest a r e du c ed s e nt e nc e o f1 2 0 mo nths
. Unab l e t o a c c e pt th e d efend an t ’s p rem ise, w e fi nd i t d iffi cu lt to un d ersta nd how the co urt coul d have com m i tte d err orby i m po s i ng a s e nt e nc e hi g he r tha n o ne tha t wa s neve r re q u es te d by a p a r t y. A s a res u lt, th e re m ain d er of h is ar gum ent o n appeal i s without m er i t.
II. Even i fwe a ssum e that the defendant expl i ci tl y r equ ested a redu ced sent en ce of 12 0 m ont hs , de fend an t’s a r g u me n to n a p p e a l n e v e r th e l e s s f ai l s b e c a u s e , a s we have previ ousl y e xplai ned , R u le 3 5( b) hear i ngs do not p ro vid e a n op p or tu n i t y for a fu ll res en te n c in g. U nited State s v. Shelb y, 584 F.3d 743 , 745 (7th C ir. 2009). Rule 35 p ro vi des that“[ a] co urt m ay re du ce a se ntence if th e d efe n d an t . . . pr ov id ed s u b st an tia l as sis ta n c e in i nv es ti g at i ngo r pr o se cut i nga no th erpe r so n, ” an d , i n the case thatthe as sis tance occur s m or e than a y earafter sen te nci ng, thatas si sta nce s ati sfi es one ofthr ee sta tu to rily d efin ed cr i te ria
. See Fed
. R. Crim
. P. 35(a) & ( b). As the r ul e’ s pl ai n l an gu age indi ca te s, i n r ul i ngo n a Rule 35( b) m oti on, the ro l e o fthe cour t i s li m ite d to as se ss i ngthe e xt en t o fth e d efen dan t’ s as si st an ce t o the gov er nm ent a nd wh ether, and to wh at degre e, thatas si stance m er i ts a r educti on i n hi s o r her sente nce. R u le 35 se r ve s th e l i m i te d pur po se o ff ac i l i ta tingl aw e nf o r ce m en t by enabl i ng the go vern m en t t o el i ci t a ssi sta nce fro m an offen d er by asking the cou rt to red uc e th e of fe n d er’s se n t e n c e in rec og n itio n of h is a ss ist an c e. Shelb y, 58 4 F
. 3d6 N o. 11

- 1226

Th i s i s a n a r g u me n twe a p p r o a c h wi t h s o me t r e p i da t i on 2 he re , as s hown above , i ti s f ar fro m c l ea r t hatthe defen dant in fact m ad e suc h a requ est. at 74 5. As we s ta te d i n Shelb y, the fi l i ngo fa Rul e 3 5( b) m otion by the gov er nm ent doe s no t then perm i t a defen d an t t o a rg u e fo r a fu ll res en te n c in g on th e b as is ofso m ethi ng o therthan the a ssi sta nce he p rovi ded to th e g o v e r n m en t. Id . To allow ot h er w ise , w e s aid , w ou ld cre ate a “tr i ple anom aly. ” Id
. at74 5 ( “I t would cr eat e arbi tr ar y di st i nc ti o ns b etwee n si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed defen dants; i t would cr eat e the equi val ent o f a j ud ge- adm i ni ster ed paro l e s yst em . . . ; and i t wou ld im pai r the obj ecti ve of Rule 35( b) , w hi ch
. . . i s to ass i st law enfo rce m en t.”)
. T h e d irection of Shelb yi s cl earand contr ol s thi s ca se. It is als o t h e ru le in ot h er circ u its
. U ni t e d St at e s v. R o ss , 28 0 F ed . A p p x . 896 , 897 -98 (11 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. D oe, 351 F.3d 9 29 , 9 33 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. Co nt r ar y t o the defe nd ant’ s a sse rt i on, th e d i str i ct c ourtwas not required to consi der the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs . I n st ea d , i n conf or m ance w i th the purpose of the r ule , the dist ri ct c ourtbas ed its dec isi on on i ts ev a lu a tion of th e d efend an t’s ass i sta nce and gra n ted a re du cti on co nsi ste nt with that d et er m in at ion
. See H r’ g Tr
. 4. The de f en dan t r el i es o n o ur de ci si o n i n U ni t ed S ta tes v. Chapman , 53 2 F
. 3d 625 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , to ar gue that o nc e a di st r i ctc o ur t g r an ts a Rul e 35 ( b) mot i o n, b ut devi ate s upw ar d fr om the re quested r educti on, i t m ust ba se i ts e ve nt ua l s en te nc e o n § 3553( a) f ac to r s. The 2 defe n d an t m i sr eads Chapm an . In th at ca se w e e x p re ss lyN o. 11

- 1226 7 reserved the q ue stion of “w he th er . . . a district cou rt [i s] required to co nsi der the sect ion 3553 f acto rs [
. ] ” Chapm an , 532 F.3d at 630 (e m p h asis i n origi na l)
. Furth er, Chapm an ca nno t pr o vi de m uch he l p to the de f en dan t because Chapm an i nvol ved di ff er ent f acts . I n that case , the g overnm ent o ff er ed a r eco m m endati on o fa tw ol ev elo ff en se r edu ct i o n wi tha sent en ce a t th e bo tt o m e nd o f th e re su ltin g g u id elin e ra n ge , 84 m on th s. Id. a t6 32. D efe n se co u n se l ag re ed w ith th is re q u es t. Id. The di stri ct cour t a pp l i ed the tw o- l eve l r educti on but sente nced defen dan t to 1 02 months a t th e hi g he r e nd o fthe re su lti ng g uidel i ne r ange i n l i ght o fdefendant’s si gn i fica n t c rim in al h ist or y. Id. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tfi rs t acc ep te d the p urp orted value of the d efend an t’s ass i sta nce and then consi dered the § 35 53( a) f acto rs to det e r mi n e i fth e r e s u l t i n gs e n t e n c e wa s u nj u s t . He r e , the g o ve r nm en t m ade no s en te nc i ngr ec o m m en dat i o n. Because the par ti es did notag re e o n a r eco m m ended re du cti on, the d i str i ct’ s co urt appears to have ar ri ved at th e 16 8- m o nth s en te nc e bye xa m i ni ngthe v al ue ofthe W ebst er ’ s a ssi sta nce. So to cla rify : Shelb yst ands f orthe noti on that a di str i ct cour t hea ri ng a Rule 35(b) m oti on m ay not use the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs to furtherr educe the defe nd ant’s sente nce o nce the v al ue o fhi s a ssi sta nce has bee n ass ess ed. To a l l ow o th er wi se woul d di sturb th e unde r l y i ngo r i g i na l s en tence , r atherthan m er el y s ubtra ct the va l ue o fthe as sista n c e p ro vid ed
. Chapm an gi ves dist ri ct c ourt s the opt i on o fus i ngthe § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s t o d ete r m i ne i fg r an tingthe fu ll s entence r educti on a gr eed upon by the t w o parti es wo ul d r e s ul ti n a n unj us ts e nt e nc e . I n the p r e s e ntc a s e,8 N o. 11

- 1226 th e g o ve r nm en t di d no t agr ee t o a s pec i fi c r edu ct i o n, an d i nd eed, the defe nd ant di d not pro pose a s pec ific re du cti on. I fwe adopted W ebst er ’ s pos i ti on, a re quest f oras l ar ge a r educti on a s possib l e would al w ays tr i gge r a revi ew o fthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs . W e s ee no r eas on t o en do r se s ucha n a ppr o ac h. I n shor t, by ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct w as r equi re d to ta k e th e § 35 53 ( a) f actors i nt o a cc o untwhende ci di ng by ho w much to r edu ce hi s se nt en ce , th e d efenda nt seeks a ful l r e- ex ami na ti o n o fhi s se nt en ce . Thi s i s co ntr a r y t o th e l a n g u a g e a n d p u r p o s e o f R u l e 3 5 ( b ) , a s i nte r pr et ed i n Shelb ya nd we th er efo r e m us t r ej ec t th e ar gum ent. The defe nd ant f ai l ed to r equest a r educed sentence at th e he ar i nga nd the r efore is unabl e to a r g ue tha t th e c ou rterr ed by d ev iat in g fro m a r eq u es te d red u c tio n . In an y even t, bec au s e R u le 35(b) hea rings are not an opp ortu ni ty f ora fullr ese ntenci ng, the dist ri ct c ourtcannot consi der f acto rs o therthan the de fen dant’s subst anti al ass i sta nce i n deci ding by how m u ch to r educe the def endant’s se ntence i fthe re d u c tio n is l ess than the r equest. I t was the re f or e no t e rroneous f orthe dist ri ct co ur t to f ai l t o c o ns i derthe § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s i n r edu ci ng the defendant’s s en tence. Fo r these r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

1- 19- 12