United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 7, 2009∗

 Decided December 14, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM L. CURTIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Southern District of Illinois. 

No. 99 CR 40026-JPG

J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

Order

William Curtis is serving a sentence of 327 months’ imprisonment for crackcocaine offenses. That is the upper limit of his original Guidelines range of 262 to 327 

months. After the Sentencing Commission reduced the ranges for crack offenses, and 

made those changes retroactive, Curtis asked the district judge to lower his sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). The district court concluded that Curtis is eligible for a 

reduction and that his new range is 240 to 262 months. (The lower bound reflects a 

statutory minimum sentence.)

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-3213 Page 2

The judge concluded that Curtis is not an appropriate beneficiary of the changes. 

The judge stated when sentencing Curtis that he would have ordered him to serve 

more than 327 months had he been allowed to do so, indeed that his crime and 

criminal history, combined with his reckless endangerment of officers and civilians 

when trying to escape, justified a sentence of life imprisonment. But the statutory 

maximum for his crime is 30 years, and until United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005), judges were obliged to follow the Commission’s prescriptions. Considering all 

developments since the Curtis’s sentencing, including Booker as well as the new 

Guideline range, the judge stated that he now thinks that 327 months is the right 

sentence.

Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal and submitted a brief 

that complies with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Curtis was invited to 

respond, see Circuit Rule 51(b), and did so.

Counsel observes that §3582(c)(2) gives a judge discretion to reduce a sentence 

but does not compel the judge to use that authority. See United States v. Young, 555 

F.3d 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2009). Curtis responds that, by leaving his sentence in place, the 

judge has disregarded the Sentencing Commission’s decision to reduce the ratio 

between crack and powder cocaine. But the judge did not “disregard” that decision. 

He found Curtis eligible for a reduction and recognized that the Commission favors 

240 to 262 months. The judge well understood that a sentence of 327 months 

substantially exceeds the Commission’s recommendation. The judge also explained 

why he thinks 327 months appropriate for Curtis’s total conduct. The statute gives 

discretion to the district judge rather than the court of appeals. We do not see any 

non-frivolous argument that the sentencing judge’s discretion has been abused.

Curtis wanted the district court to recalculate his range by deleting a two-level 

enhancement for obstruction of justice that had been one contributor to the original 

sentence. Curtis maintains that his high-speed flight from police, which ended in a 

crash, should not have been treated as obstruction. Section §3582(c)(2), however, 

permits a district judge to implement retroactive changes adopted by the Sentencing

Commission; it does not require (or even permit) the district judge to start from 

scratch and reopen issues that could have been raised on appeal following the original 

sentencing. The Commission has not made any retroactive change to the Guidelines 

that deal with obstructing justice. There is accordingly no appellate issue concerning 

the district court’s conclusion that Curtis’s revised range is 240 to 262 months’ 

imprisonment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as 

frivolous.