United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 22, 2009

Decided October 2, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐1722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JOSIAH COMPTON,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District

of Illinois.

No.  3:04‐cr‐30139‐GPM

G. Patrick Murphy,

     Judge.

O R D E R

Last year we affirmed Josiah Compton’s conviction for various drug‐related crimes but

vacated his sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment and remanded for resentencing.    We

determined that the district court improperly included 197 kilograms of cocaine in Compton’s

relevant conduct calculation,resulting in an incorrect guideline range of 360 months to life, and

also advised the district court to considerthe appropriate impact of Kimbrough v. United States,

128 S.Ct. 558 (2007), on Compton’s sentence.  United States v. Farmer, 543 F.3d 363, 372‐76 (7th

Cir. 2008).

The district judge on remand corrected his calculation error and determined, as we did, the

proper guideline range to be 324‐405 months.    After further hearing from counsel and

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐1722 Page 2

Compton, and expressly considering the disparity in sentences between offenses involving

powder and crack cocaine underthe guidelines,the districtjudge reduced Compton’s sentence

to a below guideline term of 200 months’ imprisonment.  Despite this substantial reduction,

Compton appeals his new sentence.

Compton’s court‐appointed lawyers determined that the present appeal contains no

nonfrivolous issues for our review and filed the required Anders brief to document their

conclusion.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d

364 (7th Cir. 1985).  Compton filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief.  We have reviewed the

issues identified in both filings.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

We have also reviewed the transcripts of both the original sentencing and the resentencing

hearings, and agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.  

Contrary to Compton’s claim, “the guidelines applicable to a resentencing are those that

were in force on the date of the original sentencing.”  United States v. Alexander, 553 F.3d 591,

592 (7th Cir. 2009); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g)(1).  We further note that the district judge

considered the difference between crack and powder cocaine sentences, agreeing with

Compton’s denouncement that the disparity is “wrong”, describing the disparity as

“intolerable” and “unfair”.  He was notrequired, however, to go so far as to sentence Compton

on the basis of a one‐to‐one ratio.  See United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d 605,610 (7th Cir. 2009).  In

short, the district judge properly calculated the applicable guideline range, did not err in his

factual findings, and imposed a reasonable sentence well below the range after considering the

factors articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Compton’s sentence isAFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw isGRANTED, and this appeal

is DISMISSED.