NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0106n.06 No. 08-6299 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v.
SHA WN WI L L I AM S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE W ES TER

N DI S TR I CT OF KENTUCKY

B e fo re : MA RTI

N, SI L ER, and

MO OR E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Shawn Wil liams a ppeals the district c ourt’s orde r deny ing r elief pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) , which per mits m odification of a term of imprisonment that was “ba sed on a sente ncing rang e that has subse quently been lowe red by

the SentencingCommi ssion.” The dist ri ct co u rt denied a

sentenc e re duction under A mendments 706 and 713 to the United States Se nte nc ingGu ide lin es (“USSG” ), wh ic h to g e the r r e tr oa c tiv e ly re du c e the ba se of

fe ns e le ve ls applicable to coca ine base (“c rac k”) of fense s, concludingthat Wil liams was inelig ible for a sentenc e reduc tion under § 3582(c )(2) beca use he w as sentenc ed as a car eer off en d er a nd Amendment 706 did not lower his sentenc e. We AF F IRM

. Pur su ant t o a

Rul e 11 ple a

a g re e me nt, Willi a ms p le d guil ty to pos se ssi ng fi ft

y or mor e g ra

ms of cr ack w ith intent to di stribute in vi o l at ion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and ( b)(1) (A)( iii). The parties a g ree d that the amount of drug s involved in the case was 130.1 g ra m s o f crack. TheNo. 08-6299

Un ite d St a te s v . Wil liams

- 2 - g overnme nt ag ree d to rec ommend a sente nce at the lowest end of the a pplicable Guide lines rang e, but not lower than a

ny applicable mandatory

minimum sentenc e. I t also ag ree d to a three -leve l reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility , pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a) and (b)

. Wil liams’s base of

fense level wa s 32 and he was given a 3-leve l reduc tion for a cce ptance of

re sp on sib ili ty , yie ldi nga

tot a l off e ns e le ve l of 29. B e c a

us e he wa s a care e r of

fe nd e r, ho we ve r, his t o t al o ff en s e l ev el wa s en h an ce d

t o 3 4 p u rs u an tt o US S G § 4 B 1

. 1 (b ). T h u s , h i s Gu i d el i n es ra n ge was 262-327 months’ imprisonment. The district c ourt found that Willi ams was a car eer offe nder and sente nced him to 262 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutiv el y t o a state sentenc e that W i l l i am s wa s s erv i n g. On appe al, Will iams argues that the district cour t errone ou s l y concluded that he wa s ineligible f

or sentenc e modification under § 3582(c )(2) beca use United States v. Book er , 543 U. S. 220 (2 0 0 5), made the Guidelines a dvisory , there by making it inconsistent for sentenc e re ductions t o b e d i c t a t e d b y t h e G u i d e l i n e s . W i l l i a m s ’ s ar g u m e n t s ar e f o r e c l o s e d b y United States v. Perdue , 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009), which conclude d that a defenda nt sentence d as a c are er of fende r under § 4B1.1 is ineligible for a § 3582(c )(2) sentenc e re duction based on A mendment 706. Id. at 292-93. We e xpla ine d th a t, b e c a us e Con g re ss e xpressl y li mit e d th e a pp lic a bil ity of § 3 58 2( c )( 2) to “def endant[s] whose sente nce w as base d on a subseque ntly -lower ed sente ncing r an g e” a nd Am e ndme nt 7 06 did

no t c ha ng e the ba se of

fe ns e le ve l f

or c are e r o ff e nd e rs un de r § 4B 1. 1, de fe nd ants

se n te n c e d a s c ar e e r o f

f e n d e r s ar e n o t e li g ib le f

o r s e n te n c e mo d if

ic a ti o n u n d e r § 3 5 82(c) (2) a nd Amendment 706. Id. a t 29 2 ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; se e als o U

nite d S tates v . G ill is , -- F.3d - -, 2009 WL364466, at *3 (6th C ir. 2009) (a g ree ing that a def endant se ntence d under § 4B 1.1No. 08-6299

Un ite d St a te s v . Wil liams

- 3 - is in eli gib le fo r a

se nte nc e re du c tio n b a se d o n A me ndme nt 7 06 ); Un ite d S tates v . Lo c k

e tt , 3 41 F. Ap p’ x 129 , 131 (6 th Cir . 200 9) (r e je c tin g the argume nt t

hat a c are e r o ff

e nd e r s e nte nc e d p ur su ant t o § 4B1.1 was s entenc ed “based on” § 2D1.1 such that Ame ndment 706 reduc es his sentenc e). Booke r has no impact on that re s u l t
. As we stated in Perdue , “[ e] v en as s u m i n g arguendo that the Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n h a s n o a uth or ity to l imi t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a bil ity to re du c e [a d e fe nd ant’ s] sentenc e, Con gr ess may

cer tainly cabin the c ourt’s di scre tion, and it does so expressly in the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) .” 572 F .2d at 292. AF F IRMED.