## 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 o. 11
- 3623 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M AS HI CA S PAN N, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- Cr-244

—Rudo lphT. Rand a,Ju dge . S UB MI TT ED M AY 2, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 29, 2012

Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C URI AM . Whi l e o n pr o ba ti o n fo ra s tate d rug c o nvi cti on, M ashi ca S pann m et Carl os H offm an in cour tm an dat ed g r o up the r apya nd j o ined hi s he r o i n- di st r ibutio nrin g. Sh e w as ind ict ed in fe d er al c ou rtfor h er role i n the oper ati on and pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to distr ibu te h er oin, see2 1 U
. S
. C
. § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a c r i me that presum pti vel y m andated a m i ni m um pris on te rm o f fi ve years be cau se th e con sp ir a c y i nv olved 100 or m ore gr am s, id. § 84 1(b) ( 1) ( B)
. Afte rrej ec tingSpa nn’ s ar g um en t2 N o. 11
- 3623 th ats he was a min i m alo rminorpa r ti ci pan t i n the c rim e, see U
. S. S. G. § 3B1. 2, the dist ri ct c ourtcal cul ate d her g ui del i ne s i m priso nm en t r an g e as 5 7 to 7 1 m o nths wi tho utthe ma nd a t o r y mi ni mum, wh i c h mad e the a pp lica b le ra n ge 60 to 71 m on th s, see U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1.1( c )( 2); U nited Sta tes v . Go nz a lez , 534 F.3d 613 , 615 (7th C ir. 2008). Butthe g o ve r nm en t m o ve d f o ra se nt en ce b el o w the m andator y m i ni m um , ci ti ng S pann ’s substa nti alas si stance in the i nvest i gat i on ofH offm an and others
. See18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( e)
. T h e courtgr anted the m oti on an d s enten ced Spann to 2 4 m o nths , l es s th anha l fo fthe m an dat o r y min i m um a nd mor e th an a yearb el o w the g o ve r nm en t’ s m o stf av o r ab l e r ec o m m en dat i o n. Spann fil ed a no ti ce o fappeal, but her appoint ed co uns e lh a s c o n c l u d e d th a tth e a p p e a li s fr i v o l o u s a nd se ek s p er m iss ion to w ith d ra w . SeeA nders v. Ca li forni a , 38 6 U
. S. 738 ( 1967 )
. Spann has not accepte d o ur invi tat i on to c o m m en t o n c o uns el ’ s f ac i al l y a dequa te s ubmi ss ion
. SeeC IR . R. 51 ( b)
. W e l i m i t o ur r evi ew to the po te n ti al iss u es th atco u n s e l d isc u ss es . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 28 9 F
. 3d 968, 9 73
- 74 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. S pann do es no t want her gui l ty ple a s et asi de, so co unselpro perly f or goe s di sc us singthe ade qua cy o f th e pl eac o l l o quyo rthe v o l unta rin es s o f th e p lea
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 2 8 7F
. 3d 667, 670-72 (7th C ir. 2002). C ou ns el first consid ers argu ing tha t the district cou rt und er val ued Spann’s coo pera ti on a nd di d not s have en ou gh t i m e fr o m the s ta tu to r y min i m um . Butv alui ng substa nti al ass i sta nce gi ven as part of a cooper ati on ag re em en t un d er 18 U .S.C
. § 35 53 (e) is a m at te r w i t h in the s entencing co urt’ s di scr eti on, an d thus counse lN o. 11
- 3623 3

W e exp ress no op inio n o n w he the r w e sim ilarly w ou ld 1 lac k juri sdic ti on ov er a n a pp el lat e c lai m thata dis tr ic t c ourt under valu ed a de fen dant ’ s c oope ra t i on i n gr ant i ng a m ot i on underU. S. S. G . § 5 K1. 1 i n a c as e i n whi c h the bot t om ofthe guid el ines i m pris on m en t range w as not s et by a s tatutory (co n tin u ed ...) r i g ht l y c o nc l ude s th ata n a ppel l at e cl ai m c ha l l en g i ng the re du cti on as too l i ttl e w oul d b e fri vol ous b ec au se w e la c k jur isd ict ion to rev iew th e c on t e n tio n . See 18 U .S.C . § 3742 (a); U ni t e d S t at es v. Thom as , 11 F. 3d 732, 73 5 (7t h C i r . 1 99 3); U nited Sta tes v. Sh a ffer, 99 3 F
. 2d 625, 62 8- 29 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93 ); U nite d S t at e s v. D e an , 90 8 F
. 2d 215, 21 7- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90)
. A l though these case s pre date U nited S t a t e s v. B o o ker, 5 4 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we h a v e e xp l a i ned ind isc u ss in g s en te n c e re d u c t i on s u n d er Fe d er al R u le o fCr i mi na lP r o c e du r e 3 5 ( b ) tha t B o o kerdi d not a l ter our l i m i ted j uri sdic ti on under 1 8 U.S.C
. § 3742 ( a) , wh i ch is also th e sou rc e of ou r j u ris d ic t i o n h er e. See U nited Sta tes v. M cG ee, 5 08 F
. 3d 44 2, 4 44
- 45 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( co ncl ud i ng tha t chal l enging extent ofse ntence re du cti on u n der R u le 3 5(b ) w ou ld be frivo lou s); see also Un i t e dS t a t e s v . C hapman , 532 F.3d 625 , 628 (7th C ir. 2008 ); U nited St a t e s v. P a rker, 54 3 F
. 3d 790, 79 2 ( 6th Ci r. 20 08); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Has ki ns , 47 9 F
. 3d 955, 95 7 (8 th C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at es v. M cKnight, 44 8 F
. 3d 237, 23 8 ( 3d Cir
. 200 6). W e s ee no princi ple d basi s t o dist i ngui sh se ntence re du cti ons gi ven under Rule 35(b) fro m th os e g ive nu n d er § 3 5 5 3 ( e), so w e w ou ld concl ud e that we l ack j uri sdic tio n o vera cl ai m that th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld h av e b ee nm or e g en er ou s in r ewa r di ngS pann fo rhe rc o o per at i o n. 14 N o. 11
- 3623

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 m i n im u m . Compa r eUni t e d S t a t e s v. Anonymo us De f e nda nt, 629 F .3d 68, 73-75 ( 1st C ir. 20 10 ) (con clu d ing t h a t, p ost- B ooker, a p p ea ls c o u rt s h a v e ju ri sd ic tio n o v er su ch cla im s), w ith Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Be r ni, 4 3 9 F. 3d 990, 992- 93 ( 8th Cir
. 2006) ( reac hing opp osi te concl usi on, though exam ini ng d is tr ic t c our t ’ s as s es s m en to f d efen dant ’ s c oope ra t i on as par tof re v ie w o f sen te n ce ’s re a so n a b le n es s). C ou ns el nex t con side rs arg uin g tha t the district cou rt e r r e d i n r ej e c t i ng S pa nn ’ s c o nt e nt i o n tha t s he w as a m i noro r m i ni m alpart i ci pant in the co nspir acy. See U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 2. Though the cour t m i ght ha ve disc u s s e d th i s gu i d e l i n es qu e s t i o nmo r e e x t e n s i v e l y, we agr ee w i th co unselthata c h alleng e t o the a dvers e rul i ng would be fri vol ous. W hen r elyin g on § 35 53( e) as au th ority to sen ten ce a d efend an t below a m an d atory m i ni m um , a dist ri ct c ourtm ay not re du ce the se nten ce base d o n f acto rs othe r than the defe nd ant’s c oo peratio n . E.g
. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 58 0 F
. 3d 666, 672- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09); U n ited S ta tes v. Wineba rger, 66 4 F
. 3d 388, 39 6 (3 d C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 57 7 F
. 3d 1032 , 10 36 (9t hC ir. 20 09 ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Bu r ns , 57 7 F
. 3d 887, 894 (8th Cir. 2009) ( e n ban c). Th e bottom of Sp an n’s gu idelines im p risonm en t range ult im ately w as d eterm in ed by th e s ta tu t o r y m in im u m p en alt y, see U. S
. S
. G. § 5 G 1.1 (c )(2) ; G o nz a lez , 534 F.3d at61 5; U ni t e d St at es v. T yler, 125 F.3d 11 19 , 1 1 2 0 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ). A n y p os sib le er ro r i n notapply i ng § 3B1. 2 was nece ssa ri l y har m l ess b ec au se th e c ou rtse n t e n c ed be low th e m an d at or y m in im um , and any re du cti on be l ow that m i ni m um had to be base d on co oper ati on a l one.N o. 11
- 3623 5 Counsell astco nsi ders w hetherS pann coul d chal l enge the s ubstanti ve re aso nabl eness o fherpri son se n te nce but co rr ectly concl ud es that such a chal l enge w oul d be friv olo u s. A s w e h av e e x p lain ed , Sp an n ’s s en te n c e fa lls bel ow the st atuto rym i ni m um , and w e hav e no autho ri ty to consi der whether the d ist ric t co urt shoul d have d e v ia t e d furt he r from thatm inim um to reflect Spa nn ’s coo perat i on . M or eov er, the dist ri ct c ourtco uld not have devi ated fur therfro m the m i ni m um bas ed on a n an alysis of th e factors set forth in 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a). W e thus w oul d hav e no basi s to ass ai l the re asonabl eness ofthe sente nce. A c c or d in gly , cou n se l’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w is G RANTE D , and the appeali s D IS MIS S ED .

5- 29- 12