# U n ited S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls Forthe S eventhCir cuit Chi ca go ,I l l ino i s 60 604 Subm i tte d October18 , 20 10 Deci ded N ove m ber29 , 20 10

Befo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e

N o. 10

- 2601 U N I TE D STA TE S OF A M ER I CA , A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es

P la intif f-A pp ellee, D ist ric t C ou rtfor t h e C en tr al Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s. v. No
. 1 : 0 0

- c r - 1 0 0 8 9

– MM M- J AG C H A R L E S W O O D S,

D ef endant-Appellant. M i c ha e l M. Mi hm , J udg e .
O RD E R Ch ar l es W oo ds w as convi cted on tw o counts ofd i str ibuti on offi ve orm or e g ra m s o f coca i ne bas e, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1)
. Base d on the am ount o fco cai ne bas e attribu table to M r. W ood s, an d adj us ted f or M r. W ood s’s role in th e offen se, th e d istri ct cou rt con clud ed that M r. W ood s’s offen se level w as 38. T he district cou rt also d eterm ined th at M r. W oo ds w as a ca re ero ff ender; under the ca re er off ender gui del i nes, M r. W oo ds’s o ff ense l eve l w as 37. B ecau se th e offen se level for th e d rug q ua nt ity g u id e lin e w as greater, the cou rt em plo yed an off ense l eve l o f38 , wh ich yi el ded a cor re sponding sente nci ng r ange of36 0 m onths to l i f e. The dist ri ct courtsentenced M r. W oo ds to 36 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n eac h co unt
. Ona ppea l, thi s co ur t affi r m ed M r . W o o ds’ s co nv i ct i o n. 

### NO NPRE CEDE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ited o nlyin ac c ordanc ewith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 10

- 2601 Page 2

On M ay 23, 20 08, r el yi ng o n the a m en dm ent r educing the o ff ense l eve l s f orcr ack c o c a i ne o ff e ns e s , M r . W o o ds fi l e d a n i ni t i a l mot i o n f o r a s e nt e nc i ng r e du c t i o n un de r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 8 5 2 ( c )
. Th e di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d the mot i o n o n the g r o un d tha t the a men dme nt di d not ha ve the eff ec t o fl o wer i ngM r . W o o ds’ s a ppl i cabl e g ui del i ne ra ng e be ca us e a ppl i ca ti o n ofthe c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e y ield ed th e s am e s en te n c in g ra n ge . On M ay 6, 20 10, M r. W oo ds fi l ed a seco nd m oti on und er § 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 852( c) i n w hi ch he so ug htre duct i o n ofhi s s en te nc e ba se d o n thi s co ur t’ s dec i si o n i n U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 59 8 F. 3d 411 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. M r. W oo ds ar gued that C o rnerper m i tte d the di str i ct c ourtto di sag re e w i th the S entenci ng Guidel i nes pol i cy sta tem ents that had precl ud ed the dist ri ct c ourtfro m r edu ci ng M r . W o o ds’ s se nt en ce dur i ng th e i ni ti alpr o ce edi ng s unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 58 2( c)
. T he dist ri ct courth el d that C o rner d id n ot ap p ly re tr oa c tiv ely an d th er efo re d id n ot p ro vid e a ba sis for gran ting M r. W ood s reli ef. On appe al, M r . W o o ds r en ews hi s ar g um en t th ato ur de ci si o n i n C o rnerp ro vid es a b as is f o r g r an tingr el i efunde r § 3 58 2( c)
. We di sa g r ee . Bas ed o n th e l an g ua g e o f§ 3 58 2( c) ( 2) a nd the S upr eme Cou r t’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o ftha t st atut o r y l an g ua g e i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i l l on , 130 S
. Ct. 26 83 ( 20 10 ) , we be l i ev e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y de ni ed M r . W o o ds’ s m o ti o n. M r . W o o ds s e e k s a r e du c t i o n i n hi s s e nt e nc e pu r s ua nt t o 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 2 , wh i ch provi des i n re l evantpart :

[ I ] n the c as e of a defendant w ho has bee n sent enced to a ter m o f i m pri sonm ent b ase d on a sente nci ng r ange that has s ubsequentl y b een low ered by the Sente nc ing C om m issi on p urs ua nt to 28 U
. S. C
. 994 (o ), up on m oti on of the defe nd ant o r the Di re cto r ofthe Bu re au ofPri sons, oro n i ts own m oti on , the co urt m ay re du ce the te rm o fi m pri sonm ent, afterco nsi deri ng the f acto rs se t fo rth i n sect i on 3553( a) to the exte nt that th ey are ap p lica b le, if s u ch a reduct ion is consist entwith applicabl e policy s t at e m e nt s is s ue d b y theSe nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i on . 18 U
. S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) ( em phasi s a dd ed). The S up re m e C ourth as m ade cl earthatthe i ntent of § 3582 ( c) ( 2) i s “ to author i ze onl y a l i m i ted adj ustm ent t o an o ther w i se fi nal se ntence and not a pl en ary r ese ntenci ng pro ceedi ng. ” D i l l on , 13 0 S
. Ct. at26 91. Ad dit i onal l y, the Court has estab li sh ed a proce d ure f or evaluat ing m otions brou gh t pu rsu an t to this section : “A cou rt m ust fi rs t dete rm i ne th at a r ed u c ti on i s co nsi ste nt with § 1 B1. 10 bef or e i t m ay consi der whethe r the a utho r i ze d r edu ct i o n i s wa r r an te d, e i th eri n who l e o r i n pa r t, a cc o r di ngt o the f acto rs se t f or th i n § 3 553( a)
. ” Id. Turningto § 1B1. 10, A pp l i cati on N ote 1( A ) st ate s: E ligib ility for c on sid er at ion u n d er 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) is tr igg er ed on lyN o. 10

- 2601 Page 3 b y an am en d m en t li st ed in su b se c tio n (c ) th at low er s t h e a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange. Accordi ngl y a r educti on i n the defe nd ant’ s t er m o f impri so nm en t i s no t au th o r i ze d unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) a nd i s no t co ns i s t e ntwi t h thi s pol i cys t at e m e nti f : . . . .(i i) an am en d m en t list ed in subsect i on ( c) i s appli cabl e to th e d efend ant b utt heamend m e ntdoe s no t ha ve the effect o

f lo w ering the defen da nt’s a pp lica ble gu ideli ne ra ng e because of t h e o p er at ion of an ot h er gu id elin e o r st at u to ry p ro vis ion
. . . . U
. S. Sente nc ing G uid eli ne M an ua l § 1B 1.10, cm t n.1(A ) (2010) (em p ha sis add ed ). H er e, th er e i s no que st i o n th at, afte r M r . W o o ds’ s se nt en ci ng, th e Sen ten cing C om m iss ion low er ed th e s en te n c in g ra n ge fo r c ra c k c oc ain e c on vic tio n s. H ow ev er , i t a lso is th e ca se tha t, i fM r . W o o ds ha d no t be ens en te nc ed b ased on the a m o unto fc r ac kc o ca i ne at tr ibut ab l e to hi m , he woul d ha ve b ee n s en te nc ed unde r th e ca r ee r o ff en derg ui del i ne . I fthe di st r i ctc o ur t ha d e m pl o y ed th e ca r ee r o ff en derg ui del i ne i ns te ad o fthe crac k c o ca i ne gui del i ne, the sam e s entenci ng r ange w oul d have r esul ted. Accordi ng to appli cati on not e 1(A )( ii ), i t w ou ld be incon sisten t w ith t h e p o lic y statem en t for th e cou rt to enterta in M r. W oo ds’s m oti on t o re du ce hi s s entence bec ause the a m en d m en t d oes nothave the eff ect of l o wer i ngM r . W o o ds’ s g ui del i ne ra ng e. Thus , a l th o ug h C o rner now al l ows a di str i ct c ourtto di sa g r ee wi th th e po l i cy i nhe r en t i n th e ca r ee r o ff en der g ui del i ne an d to s en te nc e a defen dan t bel ow that g uidel i ne r ange, the st atuteunder wh i ch M r. W oo ds see ks re l i efsti l l requi re s that r edu ct i o ns b e g r an te d o nl y whenc o ns i st en t wi thpo l i cys ta te m en ts
. He r e , th e p o l i cys ta te m en t allo w s fo r a m od ifica tio n u n d er § 35 82 (c )(2) on ly w h en th e p re su m p tiv e g u id elin e ra n ge is aff ecte d. That has noto ccurr ed her e. AF F I RMED