## In the



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

F o rth eS ev e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ER EK C UNN I NGH AM A ND N ORMAN T HOMAS, D efend a nt-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 04- CR-8889

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judg e. A RGUED J AN UA RY 21, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU ARY 4, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s ca se pr es en ts the c o nsol i dat ed appeal s o fDere k Cunningham and N or m an Thom a s . T he i ra pp e a l s a r i s e fr o m the s a me pr o s e c ut i on and rai se the sa m e p urely l ega li ssue: wh ethera dist ri ct cour t, in re du ci ng a defe nd ant’ s s entence pu rs u an t t o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582(c)(2), has au th ority und er U n ited S ta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220 (20 05) to redu ce a d efend an t’s se nt en ce b ey o nd the r et r o ac ti ve Gu i del i ne s amendment2 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931
ra nge. Fo r the r eas ons ex p lain ed bel ow, w e ho l d that a dist ri ct c ou rtdoes nothave autho ri ty to do so and ther efor e a ffirm th e jud gm en t o f th e d ist ric t c ou rt .
I . B a c kg r o und Bec au se thi s a ppea lpre se nt s a pure l y l eg alque st i o n, the f acts o fdefendants’ co nvi cti ons need not be ex p l or ed atl en g th
. S uffi ce t o s ay, in the o r igina lpr o se cut i o n, co- defe nd ants Thom as and C unningham bo th pl ed gui l ty to conspi ring to di str ibute c ra ck coca i ne in viol ati on o f 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. O n J a n ua ry 31, 2006 , the d istri ct cou rt se nt en ce d Tho m as t o 1 08 months in pr i so n a nd C un nin gh am to 87m ont hs in p rison. B oth sent en ces w ere at the l ow end o fthe advi sory Se n tencing Guidel i nes ra nge a pp l i cabl e t o the r espect i ve defe nd ants. I n J une 200 8, the defe nd ants fi l ed section 3582 ( c) ( 2) m oti ons to re du ce thei r sente nces base d on the re tr oac ti ve am endm ents to the c ra ck c ocai ne Guidel i nes. Based o n th e ch an g e i n the c r ac kqua nt i ti es a nd c o r r es po nd in g offense l eve l s, ea ch of th e defendants’ bas e o ffense l ev el s wer e r edu ce d b y t wo l ev el s. The de fen dan ts thus re qu es te d th atth eir se n t en c es be red u c ed tw o lev els in l i gh t o fthe am endm ent. H owever, theyal so ass er ted that the di str i ct c ourthad the author i ty to consi der g ra nti n gth e m fu r th e rs e n t e n c e r e du c t i o n s , r e s u l t i n gint e r ms ofi m pri sonm ent b el ow thei r re specti ve am ended G uidel i ne ran ges . W i th r ega rd to thi s s eco nd poi nt, defendants ar gued that the di str i ct c ourthad au th or i ty to re du ce thei r sente nces bel ow the am ended G uidel ine r anges because B o o k er m ade the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes a dvis or y.N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 3 On J ul y 1 7, 2 00 8, the di st r i ct c o ur t r edu ce d the de fen dants’ se ntences but decl i ned to decrea se thei r sente nces bel ow the two l eve lr educti on a uthor i zed bythe re tr oacti ve am endm ent. The di str i ct c ourthel d that B o o k er w as not i m plica ted be cause “ B o o k erc o nc erns c o ns ti tu
ti o na ll i m i ta ti o ns o n i nc re as i nga se n te n c e b ey on d w h atis con side r e d the p rescribed m ax im um w ithou t a j ury fi ndi ng, no t, as i n th i s ca se , to [si c] de cre as i nga sente nce. S ec ti o n 3 58 2( c) ( 2) c o ncerns o nl y s en te nc e r edu ct i o ns and thus does not i m pli cate Bo o k ero r the c onst i tuti onal l i m i tat i ons up on wh i ch thatdeci si on was prem i sed. ” De fe nd a nt s h a v e a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctco ur t’ s de te r m i na ti o n ofque st i o ns ofl aw de nov o. U ni t e d St at e s v. R yers on , 54 5 F
. 3d 483, 48 7 (7th C ir. 2008). Tit l e 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) pro vi des that [ I ] n the case o fa defe nd ant who has b een s entence d to a t er m o fim p ris onm ent b ase d on a sente nci ng r ange th at ha s subs eque nt l y be en l o wer ed by th e S en te nc i ng Comm i ss i o n pur su an t to 2 8 U. S
. C. 9 44 ( o ) .
. . the c ourtm ay re du ce the te rm o fi m pri sonm ent, after co ns i der i ngthe f ac to r s set f o r thin § 3 55 3( a) t o the ex te ntthe y a r e appl i cabl e, i f su ch a r edu ct i o n i s co nsi ste nt w i th appli cabl e pol i cy sta tem ents i ssued by th e S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n. T h e p o l i c y s t a t e me n t s r e l e v a n tt o th i s c a s e a r e f o u nd i n Sent en cingGui del i ne s se ct i o ns 1 B1. 10 ( a) ( 3) a nd4 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931

Sectio n 1 B 1.10(b )( 2)(B) pr ov id es an excep tion f or d efend an ts 1 w h o w e r e o r i g i n a l l y s e n t e n c e d t o b e l o w - G u i d e l i n e s t e r ms ofi m pri s on me n t . F o r s uc h de f en dant s , “a r educ t i on c ompa r a bl y l e s s tha n the a m e nd ed gui de l i ne r a ng e . . . m a y be a p p ro p ri a te .” 1B1. 10(b) ( 2) ( A )
. S ecti on 1 B1.10(a) ( 3) st ate s that “ proceedi ngs und er 18 U
. S. C. § 3582 ( c) ( 2) and thi s p oli cy st at ementdo no t co ns ti tu te a ful lr es en te nc i ngo fthe defen dan t. ” S ec ti o n 1 B1. 10 ( b) ( 2) ( A) pr o vi des tha t “the co ur t sh al l no t r edu ce th e defen dan t’ s te r m o fi m p riso nm ent und er 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) and thi s pol i cy sta tem en t to a t er m tha t i s l es s th anthe m i ni m um o fthe am en d ed gu id elin e ra n ge d et er m in ed u n d er su b d ivisio n(1) of th is s u b se c tio n .” 1 The basi c quest i on in thi s ca se is w hetherthes e pol i cy sta tem ents re gardingse cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) r ese ntenci ngs

— firs t, thatse cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) r educti ons do not const i tute full r ese ntenci ngs, and sec ond, thata cour t s hal lnor r edu ce ade fen dan t’ s i m pr i so nm en t to l es s th anthe m i ni m um o fthe am ended guidel i ne r ange

— confl i ct with B o o k er ’s gene ral rule tha t the Sente nc ing G uid eline s are advi sory. That i s, wh ethero r not d ist ri ct c ourt s hav e the a uthor i ty, in m aking se cti on 35 82(c) ( 2) se ntence m odi fi cati ons, to tr eat t he am ended G uidel i ne r ange as advi sory despi te the Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy sta tem ents to the c ontr ary. D efe n d an ts ad va n c e fo u r ar gu m en ts to su p p or t th eir con ten tion th at a d is trict courtcan redu ce a d efend an t’s se nt en ce b ey o nd the r et roa ct i ve Gui del i ne s amendment ra nge. Fi rs t, theyar gue that B o o k erexp ressly r ej ecte dN os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 5 th e n o t i o nth a tth e G u i d e l i n e s a r e a d v i s o r y ins o me conte xts but m andator y in othe rs . I n othe r w ord s, th ey di sa g r ee tha t th e Gui del i ne s co ul d b e adv i so r y dur i ng a defendant’s ini ti alse ntenci ng bu t m andator y in sec t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e ding s . S e c o nd , a nd t o s o me degre e in the alternative, they argu e tha t the Com m is s ion’s p oli cy stat em en ts th em selves are ad visory and thu s are not tr ulyinconsi ste nt with a be l ow-gui delines s entence . Thir d, they cl ai m thati fthe Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy sta tem ents w er e g i ven fulleffect, theywould st ri p court s o fthe i rtra di ti o na ls en te nc i ngdi sc r et i o n b y c o ns tr aini ng th ei rc o ns i der at i o n o fthe se ct i o n 35 53 ( a) f ac to r s to the e xte n t th ey are ap p lica b le

— consi derat i on t h at i s m andated unde rthe t er m s o fs ec ti o n 3 58 2( c) ( 2)
. F i na l l y, the y a r g ue that si nce the S up re m e Cour t has hel d that di str i ct c ourt s have disc re ti on t o depart fro m the Gu i del i nes e ven base d on di sag re em ents w i th the Guidel i ne’ s pol i cy st at em en ts , s e e, e . g. , Sp ears v . U nited Sta tes , __U
. S. __, __ S
. C t . __, 2 0 0 9 WL 1 2 9 0 4 4 * 2 (J a n . 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) , th e e n a c t me nt ofthe Gu i del i ne am endm ent a nd its p ol i cy sta tem ents can n ot s tri p the s entencing co urts o fthei r disc re ti on by m andati ng the st ri ct a pp l i cati on o fa tw o l eve ldepartur e. The N i nth Cir cui t a dopted m any o ft h e defendants’ vi ews in U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2007). I n H i cks , th e N i nth Ci r cui t co nc l ude d th at l i m iti ng the extent ofa sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) r educti on to th at presc ribed by th e Sent en cing C o m m issi on am ou nt s to a m an d atory appli cati on o fthe Se ntenci ng Gu i del i nes that i s pro hibi ted by B o o k er . W hi l e the cou rt c onceded that B o o k erits elf do es no t cr ea te the a utho r i tyf o rr eo pen i ngs en te nc i ng und erse ctio n 358 2( c) ( 2) , the cour t r eas oned thato nce6 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 such proc eedi ngs were ini ti ate d, the di str i ct c ourthas d isc re tio nto im p os e a n on -G u id elin es se n te n c e. Id
. at 1171 ( “Because a ‘ m andator y s yst em i s no lo ngeran open choi ce, ’ di str i ct c ourt s a re nece ssari l y e nd owed w i th the disc re ti on t o depart fro m the Gu i del i nes when i ssui ng n e w s e nte nc e s u nd e r§ 3 5 82( c) ( 2)
. ”) ( quoti ng B o o k er, 543 U
. S. at26 3)
. T h e N in th Ci rcui t a l so rej ecte d the g over nm ent’ s a rgu m en t that because a § 3 582( c) ( 2) pro ceedi ng i s no t a“fullrese ntenci ng, ” but m er el y am odi fi cati on of th e d efe n d an t’s se n te n c e, B o o k er w as i napp l i cabl e. Se ei d. at 1167 (“ The dicho tom y d ra w n by the g ove rnm ent, w here fullr e- sente nci ngs a re p er f or m ed und eran advi sory sy st em w h ile ‘re d u c tio np ro c ee d in g’ o r ‘ m odi fi catio n s’ re ly on a m an d at o r y G u i d elin e s ys te m , i s fa lse
. . . . M andator y Gui del i nes no l onge r exi st, in thi s co ntext o r in any other.”). T h e g o ve r nme n tu r g e s u s t o d e c l i n e t o f o l l o w H i cks . The y pre se ntthr ee m ain ar g um en ts i n suppo r t o fa ffi r m i ng th e di st r i ctc o ur t. F i r st, the y no te tha t 28 U. S
. C. § 9 44 ( u) gi ves the S entencing Com m i ssi on the ex c l usi ve pow er to deci de und er“what ci rcum sta nces and by what am ou n ts th e s en te n c e s o fp ris on er s . . . m ay be red u c ed .” See 28 U .S.C . § 94 4(u ); see also B rax to n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 0 U
. S. 34 4, 34 8 ( 1991 ) ( em phasi s o m i tte d) ( Congre ss has g i ve n the S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n “the unus ua la nd ex pl i c i tp o we rt o d e c i d e wh e th e ra n d t o wh a te x te nt i ts am endm ents . . . wil lbe gi ven re tr oa cti ve effect. ”) ( em phasi s o m i tte d) ( ci ti ng 28 U
. S. C. § 9 44( u))
. Thus, they re aso n, the Com m i ssi on’ s polic y stat em ents that i m ple

m ent the Com m i ssi on’ s a uthor i zation o fr etr oac ti ve sente nce r educti ons ar e bind i n g b ecause theyar e a nN os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 7
ex er ci se o ftha t st atut o r y a utho r i ty. Seco nd, the y f o cus o n the Co mm i s s i o n’ s p o l i c y st a t e men tin U. S
. S
. G. § 1B 1.10(a)( 3) w hich s t a t e s tha t un d er section 35 82(c)(2), defe nd ants do not re cei ve “a fullrese ntenci ng. ” They ci te seve ra l pre

- Booke r cases h olding, as the E levent h C ircui t d i d, f orexam ple , thatse cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) “do[ es] not c o nt e mpl a t e a ful lde no v o r e s e nt e nc i ng ” a nd “ all or i gi nal se nt en cingde te r m i na ti o ns r emai n un ch an g ed wi ththe sol e e xcepti on o fthe gui del i ne r ange that h as been am ended s i nce the or i gi nal sentencing. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Brav o , 203 F.3d 77 8, 78 1 (1 1 t h C i r . 200 0) (e m p h as is in or i gi nal ) ( i nternalq uotat i on and cit ati on om i tte d). Final l y, th e gover nm ent a rgues that B o o k erdoes notapplyto sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) pro ceedi ngs b ecause B o o k erdoes not apply to sente nce r educti ons. Se ver al re cent ci rcui t cour t deci si ons supp or t t h e gover n m e n t ’s p os itio n . See U nited Sta tes v. R ho des , 54 9 F
. 3d 8 3 3 ( 10 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unp hy, ___F
. 3 d ___, 20 09 W L 19 13 9 (4 th C ir. Jan . 5, 200 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. St arks , ___ F.3d ___, 2009 W L 66115 ( 8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009). A nu m ber of district co urt s from aroun d the cou nt ry h av e als o c om e t o th is c on c lu sio n . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Speights , 56 1 F
. S upp. 2d 12 77, 12 81 ( S
. D. Ala
. 2 00 8) ( ci ting el ev eno th erdi st r i ctc o ur t dec i si o ns fr o m a r o und the countr y that hav e hel d that B o o k erh as n o i m pact o n sect ion 3582(c)(2) red uc tions). I n o ur a na l y s i s , the b e s t pl a c e t o s t a rti s B o o k erits elf. In Booke r’s su b st an tiv e o p in ion, th e Su p re m e C ou rth eld tha t the fe de r a l s e nt e nc i ng s y s t e m a s i tthen ex i s t e d, un d er w hichthe sen ten cin g cou rt rathe r than the j ury8 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 f o und f ac ts tha t es tabl is he d the mandat o r y gui del i ne r a n ge , viola te d th e Six th A m en d m en t a s c on st ru ed in A pp rend i v. New Jersey, 5 3 0 U. S
. 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) a nd Blake ly v . Wa s h i n g t on , 54 2 U.S
. 29 6 ( 2004 )
. The co nsti tuti onal probl em that Bo o k era dd re sse d w as that “any f act that i ncre ase s the penal ty fo r a cr i m e be yond the presc ribed st atut o r y m ax imum mustb e submi tt ed to a j ur y, a nd prove d beyo nd a reas on ab l e doubt. ” B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. at 231 ( quoti ng A pp rendi, 5 30 U. S
. a t 49 0)
. The Co ur t f o und that a s entencing sy ste m in w hi ch such j ud i ci alf actfin d in g w as m an d at or y v iola te d th e Six th A m en d m en t. H owever, as the dis tr i ct c ourtr eco gni zed, in sec ti on 3582 ( c) ( 2) p ro ceedi ngs, a dist ri ct c ourtcan onl y dec reasea defe nd ant’ s s entence . Thus, the const i tuti onaldefect add re sse d by B o o k eri s sim p ly n o t im p li cate d
. M oreover, a s ecti on 3 582( c) (2) m odi fi cati on i s di scr eti onar y, ev en f ora defe nd ant whose Gui del i ne r an ge has be en r etr oac tiv ely low er ed
. See1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) ( i den ti fy i ng ci rcum sta nces i n w hi ch “the c ourt m ayredu ce th e term ofi m pri sonm ent”) ( em phasi s a dd ed). Thus, to fra m e a se ct i o n 3 58 2( c) ( 2) r edu ct i o n a s a m and atoryunde r ta k i ng th at triggers the Sixth A m en d m en t or B o o k eri s incor re ct. I t i s a dm i tte dlya b it ha rderto r eco nci l e the l anguage of B o o k er ’ s r em edi alo pini on, however . I n i ts re m edi al p or tio n, B o o k erelim in at ed th e c on st itu tio n al d efe c t id en tifi ed ab o ve b y s ev er i nga nd e xc i singthe pr o vi si o ns o fthe Gui del i ne s th atmade th em m an dat o r y, alongwi tha ny sta tutory pr ovi si ons that depend ed u pon the Gu i del i nes’ m andator y natu re . B o o k er, 5 43 U. S
. a t 24 5- 46
. The re m edi alm aj or i ty d et erm i ned that thi s was wh atN os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 9

As an i ni t i al m at t er, i tbe ar s no t i ng thatbe c aus e s ec t i on 2 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) di d n otcr oss - r e fe r e nc e a ny pr ov i s i on s e x c i s e d b y B ooker, and because B ookerdi d notdi re c t l y a ddre s s s ec t i on 35 82 (c) (2) p ro ceed ing s, section 358 2(c)( 2) rem ain ed intac t. C ong ress w ou ld h ave int e n d ed in li gh t of th e cou rt’s c o n s t itu tio n al h old in g. Id
. a t 2 4 6
. Th e Co ur t we nt o n to st at e th ati t di d “ no t se e ho w i t was poss ibl e” t o l ea ve the G u id elin es as bin d in g in so m e c as es bu t n o t in o th er s. Id
. at 26 6 . Th e C ou rt exp li citly rej ecte d the gove rnm en t’s p ro posal, whi chwoul d ha ve “ i m po se [ d] mandat o ry Gu i del i nes- type l i m i ts upon a j ud ge’ s ab ility to r educe se nt en ce s, b uti t w ou ld no t i m po se tho se l i m i ts upo n a j ud ge’ s abil i ty to i ncre ase se ntences . ” Id
. A s the Cou rt state d , “[w ]e do no t beli eve th at su ch ‘one w ay lever[s] ’ are c om p at ible w ith C on gr es s’ in te n t.” Despit e thi s br oad l angu age , we do not bel i eve that the B o o k er r emedyre nde r s th e l i m i ts s etb y the S en tencing Com m i ssi on forse cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) pro ceedi ngs advi sory. Fi rs t, unl i ke a fullse ntenci ng o r re sente nci ng,

2 Congre ss cl ear l y intended secti on 3 582( c) ( 2) pro ceedi ngs to b e a o ne wayl ev er . S ec ti o n 3 58 2( c) ( 2) a l l o ws the di st r i ctc o ur t to l ea ve a s en te nc e al o ne o rred uc e i t, b ut i t does not perm i t the dist ri ct cour t t o i ncre ase a sente nce. Se cond, and m or e g ener al l y, wh i l e Booker ’s rem edi al opi ni on s tat ed that “w e be l i eve t h at Congr ess would not ha v e a utho r i z e d ama nd a t o r y s y s t e m i n s o me c a s e s a nd a n on m an d at or y s ys te m in o th er s ” d u e t o th e p os sib le
“ a d mi n i s t r a t i v e c o mp l e x i t i e s ” o fs u c ha sy s t e m, i ts e e ms to u s th a ta l l o wi n g( o rr e qu i r i n g ) d i s t r i c tc o u r t s t o e s se n-10 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931

This is a p o intw e ( and othercourts ) feel the H i cks court 3 f ail ed to app rec iate. S ee Rh odes , 54 9 F .3d at 84 0 -4 1 ; Sta rks , 2009 W L 66115 at * 3. ti al l y c onduct a fullr ese ntenci ng upon a sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) m oti on would cr eat e m o readm i ni str ati ve com ple xi ty, not les s. Se eD unp hy, 200 9 W L 19 13 9 a t *5 . Fin ally , B o o k er ’s r emedi alo pi ni o n fo cus ed o n Co ng r es si o na li nte nt . The te xt o f se ct i o n 35 82 ( c) ( 2) m ak es cl ea r th at Con g r ess i ntended sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) m odi fi cati ons to com portwith th e C om m iss ion ’s p olic y s ta te m en ts , a n i m p os sib ility if w e were to adopt the defe nd ants’ posi ti on that B o o k er r en der ed th e Gui del i ne s whol l y a dvi sor y in the c o nt ex t of s en te n c e m od ifica tio n s (as d ist in gu ish ed from fu ll se n te n c in g p ro c ee d in gs ). T his last pointbears elaboration, as it i s the m ost im p orta ntb as is fo ro urde ci si o n t o day
. Or i g i na ls en te nc i ng p roceed in g s and sent en ce m od ification p roceed ings are l ega l l y di stinct fro m o n e another
. Ori gi nalpro ceedi ngs ar e g ove rned by18 U
. S. C. § 3 553 ( a s ta tu te that w as par ti al l y e xc i se d i n B o o k er ) , wh i l e s entence m odi fi cati on p roceed ings are govern ed by 18 U
. S. C
. § 3582(c)(2). 3 C ont rary to the d efend an ts’ c ont en tion, th ere is no “inh erent a uthor i ty” f ora dist ri ct c ourtto m od ify a s entence as it pleases; ind eed a district cou rt’s discretion to m od ify a s e n te n c e is an ex c ep tio nto th e s ta tu te ’s g en er al ru le th at“ th e co ur t m ayno t m o di fy at er m o fi m pr i so nm en t once i t has bee n i m posed. ” See 18 U
. S. C . § 35 82( c)
. W hen C ong r es s g r an te d di st r i ctc o ur ts di sc r et i o n t o modi fy sente nces i n sect i on 3582 ( c) ( 2) , i t expli ci tly in c or pora tedN os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 11 th e S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n’s po l i cys ta te m en ts l i m i ting re d u c tio n s. See U ni ted S ta tes v. W a lsh , 26 F. 3d 75, 77( 8th Cir
. 19 94) ( “Congr ess h as m ad e the pol i cy sta tem ents set forth in Section 1B 1.10 the a p p lic a b le l aw f or det erm i ni ng wh ethera distric t co urt has the autho ri ty to r e d u c e a s e n t e n c e inth i s s i tu a t i o n . ” )
. T h u s , th e C o mm i ss i o n’ s po l i cys ta te m en ts s ho ul d f o ra l lint en ts an d pu rpos es be v i ew ed as part of th e s tatute. The pol i cy sta tem ents m ake cl earthatse cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) pro cee d ings ar e no t full re sente nci ngs and m ay not re sul t in a s entence l o wertha n the a m en ded gu ide l i ne r an g e ( unl es s th e defe nd ant’ s o ri gi nal s entence was l ower than the gui delin e ra n ge ). See U. S
. S
. G. § § 1 B 1
. 1 0 ( a ) ( 3) , 1 B 1
. 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) Thi s l i m i ta ti on ofthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s po weri s no t co nsti tution ally suspect. H aving cho sen t o cre ate a m odi fi catio nm ec h an ism , B o o k erdoes notr equi re Congr ess to gr an t the di str i ct c ourt s unfett er ed dis cre ti on in applying i t. Ind eed, m andator y m i ni m um se ntences

— w hic h cabi n the dist ri ct c ourt s’ di scr eti on with re gar d to sect ion 3553(a) factors

— ha ve be en uphe l d as cons ti tu
tio n al. S e e H a rris v. U nited Sta tes , 53 6 U.S
. 54 5, 56 5- 68 (20 02 ); Uni t e d S t ate s v . Fr ank li n , 54 7 F
. 3d 726, 73 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( r ej ecti ngde fen dan t’ s ar g um en t th atthe d istri ct cou rt h ad a ut hority to d ep art from the m an d atory m i ni m um a nd c o ns i de rthe f a c t o r s s e tf o r th i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553 to i m pose a l ess er s en tence ) ( ci ting Chapm an v. U nited Sta tes , 500 U
. S. 453 (1991)). Se cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) ’ s d i re cti on that court s “shal lco nsi der the f a c t o r s in Se cti o n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) t o the e xt e ntthe y a r e a ppl i cabl e” do es no t unde r m ine o urc o nc l us io n. I t i s true th a to ne o fthe f a c t o r s in s e c t i o n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) i s the Gu i del i nes12 N os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931

r an g e, whi ch B o o k erm ade ad viso ry . H owever, se cti on 35 82 ( c) ( 2) st at es th at a di st r i ct co ur t co ns i der s the se ct i o n 3 55 3( a) f acto rs i n mak i nga r edu ct i o n “ co ns i st en t wi ththe a ppl i cabl e po l i cys ta tem en ts i ss ue d b y the S en te nc ing Co m m i ss i o n. ” The r e ne ed no t be a c o nfl i ct : the sta tute can be vi ew ed as re quir i ng d i str i ct c ourt s t o consi der the se cti on 3 553( a) f acto rs in deci ding w hether an d to w h atex te n t t o gr an t a se n te n c e re d u c tio n, bu t o n ly w ith inth e lim its of th e a p p lica b le p olic y s t a t e m e n ts . See D unp hy, 2 00 9 W L 1 91 39 a t * 7. ( I n thi s ca se , the lim i t i s th e b ot to m of th e am en d ed G u id elin e ran ge , as st at e d in U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.1 0.) I n conclud i ng th at d istr i ct c ourt s do not have author i ty to gr ant s entence r educti ons pu rs uant to se cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) be l o w the a m en ded Gui del i ne r an g e, we ar e m i ndful of t w o fin al p oin ts . A s th e g ov er n m en t p o i n ts ou t, B o o k er has no t be en m ade a basi s for p os t- convi cti on co l l ate ra l r ev i ew un der2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 5. I t woul d thus be i nc o ng r uous i fc ourt s inter prete d sect i on 3 582( c) ( 2) , wh i ch pro

vi des f orm or e l i m i ted r el i efthan sect i on 22 55 , as t ri gger i ng a full B o o k err ese ntenci ng. On a r el ate d note, B o o k er does not apply to the sco re s of defe nd ants w h ose se nt en ce s were fi na lwhen B o o k erw as h an d ed d ow n . I t w ou ld be u n fair to allow a fu ll B o o k err ese ntenci ng to only a sub set of defen d an ts w hos e sen t e n c e s w ere l owered by a r etr oac ti ve am endm ent.

I I I . Concl usio n W e s i de w i th the m aj or i ty ofcourts and hol d that di str i ct cour ts, in re du ci ng a defe nd ant’ s s entenc e p u rs uant toN os. 08
- 2901 & 08
- 2931 13 18 U
. S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) , do not have autho ri ty to re du ce the defendant’s se ntence beyo nd the re tr oac ti ve Gu i del i nes a m endm ent ra n ge. W e thus AF FIRMthe j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt .

2- 4- 09