FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 17, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 09-6129
v. (D.Ct. No. 5:93-CR-00181-R-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
WENDELL LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BARRETT, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant-Appellant Wendell Lamont Williams, a federal inmate appearing
pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion brought pursuant to 18
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for the purpose of modifying his sentence based on
Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or
“U.S.S.G.”). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On February 14, 1994, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Williams pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine
base (crack) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts of a superseding
indictment. See United States v. Williams, 145 F.3d 1347, 1998 WL 292444, at
*1 (10 th Cir. May 26, 1998) (unpublished op.). Prior to sentencing, a probation
officer prepared a presentence report recommending a base offense level of thirty-
eight based on conduct involving 2.664 kilograms of crack cocaine. In addition,
the probation officer increased Mr. Williams’s base offense level for his
managerial role in the conspiracy and declined to recommend a reduction, given
his failure to take responsibility for his conduct. See id. The resulting total
offense level was forty-one, which, together with a criminal history category of
III, resulted in a sentencing range of 360 months to life imprisonment. On May
23, 1994, the district court sentenced Mr. Williams to 360 months imprisonment
and five years supervised release, see id., resulting in a projected release date of
May 23, 2024.
-2-
Mr. Williams did not appeal his conviction or sentence. See id. Thereafter,
he sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied. See id.
On May 26, 1998, this court denied Mr. Williams a certificate of appealability on
his § 2255 motion and dismissed his appeal. See id. at **1-2. On April 21, 2008,
at Mr. Williams’s request, the district court appointed him counsel for the purpose
of filing a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 for retroactive application of
Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. Thereafter, on June 27, 2008, Mr. Williams
and the government entered into a joint motion for retroactive application of
Amendment 706 for a two-level reduction of Mr. Williams’s base offense level,
resulting in a total offense level of thirty-nine and a recommended sentence of
324 months imprisonment, for a new projected release date of July 9, 2017.
Attached to the joint motion was a preliminary report for considering a
sentence reduction based on Amendment 706. The section of the report called
“Institutional Adjustment” showed at least twenty disciplinary infractions
committed by Mr. Williams while in prison, and the section called “Educational
Programs” reported his completion of eight educational programs while
incarcerated. The twenty institutional infractions, which occurred from October
1994 through March 2008, included possession of drugs or drug items,
intoxicants, and unauthorized items and resulted in a total of nine instances of
disciplinary segregation.
-3-
After considering the joint motion, the district court issued an order
recognizing Mr. Williams’s participation in several educational programs but also
acknowledging his “long list of institutional infractions, many of which are
serious.” Based on his record at that time, it stated it would deny his motion but
would give him an opportunity “to show he can conduct himself appropriately
while incarcerated” and would “stay” his motion until July 7, 2012, when it would
“review again [his] institutional adjustment to determine whether or not a
sentence reduction is appropriate.”
Almost a year later, on June 3, 2009, Mr. Williams filed a pro se motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, again requesting a two-level reduction under
Amendment 706. On June 15, 2009, the district court issued another order, noting
that since its initial order on Mr. Williams’s original § 3582 motion he had
committed yet another institutional infraction, on April 20, 2008. Based on Mr.
Williams’s misconduct during his incarceration, it denied the motion, stating
again it would reconsider it after July 7, 2012.
II. Discussion
Mr. Williams now appeals the denial of his motion for a reduction of his
sentence, claiming the district court erred in denying him relief pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on his post-rehabilitation history, which he claims has
-4-
nothing to do with lowering his sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. We disagree.
In making our determination, “‘[w]e review de novo the district court’s
interpretation of a statute or the sentencing guidelines.’” United States v. Brown,
556 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10 th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539,
540 (10 th Cir. 1997)), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 219 (2009). “We review for an
abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to deny a reduction in sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Id. (relying on United States v. Dorrough, 84
F.3d 1309, 1311 (10 th Cir. 1996)). At issue is Amendment 706 to the Guidelines
which modified the drug quantity thresholds in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), the Drug
Quantity Table, thereby lowering the sentencing range so that “[c]rack cocaine
offenses for quantities above and below the mandatory minimum threshold
quantities ... [were] adjusted downward by two levels.” U.S.S.G., Supp. to App.
C, Amend. 706 at 230 (Reason for Amend.). The relevant part of § 3582, on
which Mr. Williams brought his motion for a reduction of sentence and the
district court relied in denying his motion, states:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§]
994(o), ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after
considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that
they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
-5-
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, the subsequent modification of
the Guidelines pursuant to Amendment 706 does not make mandatory a
sentencing reduction under § 3582. Instead, it gives the district court discretion
to determine whether to make such a reduction after considering the applicable
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Brown, 556 F.3d at 1111. In this case, the
district court clearly considered those sentencing factors when it looked at Mr.
Williams’s record of disciplinary infractions during his incarceration, including
the fact he incurred an additional infraction since its last order. Based on those
infractions, and as an obvious means of deterring his misconduct and encouraging
his compliance with penal rules, it denied Mr. Williams’s motion, indicating it
would consider a reduction at a later date – July 7, 2012 – well before the
projected new release date of July 9, 2017. Under these circumstances, we cannot
say the district court abused its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying
Mr. Williams’s motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We also DENY
the government’s motion to dismiss. 1 We further caution Mr. Williams that
1
Prior to denying Mr. Williams’s § 3582 motion, the district court stated
“[i]f the Court ruled today it would deny the motion based on [Mr. Williams’s]
institutional conduct. The Court may grant the motion if he successfully
completes the stay the Court previously imposed.” Based on these statements and
(continued...)
-6-
should he file any future appeals on the application of Amendment 706 to the
Guidelines prior to July 7, 2012, we may order him to show cause as to why his
appeal should not be summarily dismissed on the same grounds as addressed in
this appeal.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
1
(...continued)
the fact Mr. Williams did not file his notice of appeal until June 29, 2009, the
government filed a motion to dismiss on timeliness and finality grounds. We
reserved judgment on the government’s motion pending our disposition of the
appeal on the merits.
We now address and reject both the government’s timeliness and finality
arguments. First, the district court issued its order on June 15, 2009, so that the
notice of appeal was not due until June 29, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2)
(2009) (in computing any period of time specified in the Rules “[e]xclude
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is less than
11 days, unless stated in calendar days”). As a result, Mr. Williams timely filed
his appeal on June 29, 2009. Next, while the district court left open the
possibility that relief may be granted in the future, it nevertheless clearly stated at
the conclusion of its order it “denied” Mr. Williams’s motion. Thus, we conclude
the district court’s order is final for the purposes of this appeal.
-7-