* This succes si ve appealhas been subm i tte d to the o ri ginalpanelunder Operat i ng

Pro cedure 6(b) . Afte r exam i ni ng the br i ef s a nd the re cor d, w e hav e co ncl ud ed that or al ar gu m en t is u n n ec es sa ry . See Fe d . R. A p p . 34(a ); C ir. R . 34(f) . 

# United States Court of Appeals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d June 29, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly15 , 20 09 B efo re JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 1798 UNI TE D S TAT ESOF AM ER I CA P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E L IZ A B E T H W IG G IN S, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o f I l l i noi s. N o. 93
- CR
- 3002 5- W DS-0 26 W illiam D . Stie h l, Judg e . O R D E R In 1 99 4, El i zabe thW i g g i ns was c o nv i ct ed bya j ur yo fmone yl au nde r i nga nd conspi ra cy to dist ribute c ra ck coca i ne. She was sent enced to co ncurr ent t er m s o f24 0 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t o n the mone y l au nde r i ngc ha r g es a nd 3 60 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t on the co nspir acy charg e. She and the fi ve co- defe nd ants w i th wh om she proce eded to tr i al ap p ea led , an d w e a ffirm ed h er co n vic tio n s a n d se n te n c es . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Car raway, 10 8 NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1798 Page 2

F . 3d 74 5, 7 60
- 61 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) . Afte rthe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n r edu ce d the Gui del i ne ra n ge for c ra c k c oc ain e, see A m en d m en t 7 06 , an d m ad e th atch an ge ret ro ac tiv e, see A m endm ents 711 and 715, W i ggins fi l ed a m oti on in the dist ri ct c ourtto r educe her se nt en ce unde r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) . T he di st r i ctc o ur t r edu ce d he rs en te nc e o n the co ns pi r ac yc ha r g e fr o m 3 60 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t to 3 24 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t. Wi g g i ns ap p eals, arguing thatshe is entitled to a full r esen ten cing u nd er U nited Sta tes v. B o o ker, 54 3 U . S. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , and i ts prog eny. W h en th e d ist ric t c ou rtres en te n c ed W igg in s, it a d h er ed to th e d ru g qu an tit y t ab le as am ended by A m endm ent 7 06 and reduced her Offense Levelfro m 42 to 40 , wh i ch resu lted in a sen ten cing ran ge of 324-405 m ont hs ’ i m p risonm en t. Th e d istri ct cou rt’s sente nce co m pli ed w i th se cti on 3 582( c) ( 2) , wh i ch al l ows f ora re du cti on t o a t er m o f i m pri sonm ent “ i fsuch ar educti on i s co nsi ste nt with 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. ” 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 58 2( c) ( 2) . As we e xpl aine d in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunni ngh am , 55 4 F . 3d 703 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , the appli cabl e pol i cy sta tem ents dict ate fi rs t, that a re d u c tio nu n d er se c tio n35 82 (c )(2) d oe s n otco n st itu te a fu ll res en te n c in g, see U. S . S . G. 1B 1.10(a)( 3) ( p oli cy stat em en t), and secon d , thata court sh allnot red uc e the de fend an t’s te rm of im p ris on m en t t o les s th an th e m in im u m of th e g u id elin e ra n ge as am en d ed , see U .S.S.G . 1B 1.1 0(b )(2) (A ) (p olic y s ta te m en t). W igg in s a rg u es , as d id th e d efe n d an t in Cunni ngh am , tha t th e l i m i ta ti o n o n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ab i l i tyt o c o nduc t a ful lr es en te nc i ng and choos e ase ntence bel ow the am ended guidel i ne r ange vi ol ate s B o o ker’s m andate that th e Se n te n c in g G u id elin es be tre at ed as ad vis or y. See B o o ker, 543 U .S. at 2 45 -46 . As W i g g i ns a ckno wl edg es, we r ej ec te d thi s pr ec i se a r g um en t i n Cunni ngh am . In Cunni ngh am w e con side red w he th er B o o ker’s gener alrule thatthe Se ntencing Guidel i nes ar e a dvis ory m eant that dist ri ct c ourt s had the autho ri ty w hen m aking se ntence m odi fi cati ons und er§ 3582 ( c) ( 2) to “t re at the a m 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 ar y. ” Cunni ngh am , 5 5 4 F . 3 d a t7 0 5 . We conclud ed that B o o ker d oe s n otreq u ire a d ist ric t c ou rtto tre atth e g u id elin es as ad vis or y in the l i m i ted co ntext o fa re sente nci ng under § 35 82( c) , a sta tute l ega l l y di stinct fro m § 3 55 3(a ), w h ich gov er n s o rig in al s en te n c in g p ro c ee d in gs . Cunni ngh am , 554 F.3d at70 7-0 8. In so doing, we rej ecte d each o fthe ar gum ents now advanced byW i ggins. S e eCunn i ngh am , 55 4 F .3d at70 6-0 8; b uts e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 472 F . 3d 1167( 9th Ci r. 20 07) ( hol ding that dist ri ct c ourt s m ay re du ce ase ntence bel ow the am ended guidel i ne in a r ese ntencing under § 3 582( c) ) . In shor t, W i ggins’ s cl ai m thatthe dist ri ct c ourtposs ess ed dis cre ti on t o sente nce her bel ow her a m ended guidel i ne r ange i s s quarely for ecl ose d by Cunni ngh am , wh i c hwe d ec lin e t o re c on sid er atth is t im e. AFFI RM ED .