NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-4067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANDRE WILLIAMS
a/k/a "Lucky"
Andre Williams, Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 3-06-cr-00052-002
District Judge: The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 16, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 14, 2010 )
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
In 2007, the United States District Court for the Middle District of
1
Pennsylvania, pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), sentenced Andre Williams to 120 months of
imprisonment. The 120 month sentence was 68 months below the lower parameter
of the sentencing guidelines range. In 2008, after the United States Sentencing
Commission amended the sentencing guidelines by generally reducing the base
offense level for crack cocaine offenses, see U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov.
1, 2007), Williams moved for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and urged the District Court to conduct a resentencing in accordance
with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The District Court concluded
that Williams was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) in light of our
decision in United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2009). Furthermore,
the District Court noted that, even if Williams was eligible for a reduction, it
would not award a reduction because the sentence was already below the lower
parameter of the revised guideline range.
Williams filed a timely appeal.1 Williams raises two arguments solely for
the purpose of issue preservation.2 As he concedes, Sanchez controls.
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and
3582(c). Appellate jurisdiction exists under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. §
1291.
2
As these issues present questions of law regarding the application of 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), our review is plenary. United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d
275, 277-78 (3d Cir. 2009).
2
Accordingly, Williams’ binding plea agreement rendered him ineligible for a
reduction under § 3582(c)(2).3 Sanchez, 562 F.3d at 279. Even if he had been
eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), he would not have been entitled to a full
resentencing in accordance with Booker, which would have been the only avenue
available to obtain a further reduction in his sentence. Dillon v. United States,
__U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91 (June 17, 2010).
We will affirm the District Court’s order.4
3
Mindful that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Freeman v.
United States, No. 09-10245, to address whether a defendant is eligible for relief
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if the district court accepted a Rule (c)(1)(C) plea
agreement, we note that our decision does not preclude Williams from filing a
subsequent motion in the District Court if Sanchez is abrogated.
4
Our decision is rendered without prejudice to Williams asserting whatever
rights he may have under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-220
(August 3, 2010).
3