666 F.3d 1023
7th Cir.2012Background
- Webster pleaded guilty to distributing heroin and was sentenced to 216 months.
- Government filed Rule 35(b) motion after Webster provided substantial assistance.
- District court reduced sentence to 168 months based on assistance.
- Webster appealed arguing district court should consider 3553(a) factors and/or grant a larger reduction.
- Court reviews jurisdictional scope of Rule 35(b) appeals and the law governing reductions.
- Panel clarifies the interaction between Shelby and Chapman regarding 3553(a) factor consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Webster request a specific 120-month reduction? | Webster requested 120 months. | No explicit 120-month request; court should consider reduction as large as possible. | No specific 120-month request shown; issue rejected. |
| Must a Rule 35(b) hearing reevaluate 3553(a) factors? | Yes, 3553(a) factors must be considered. | No full resentencing; factors outside assistance not considered. | Shelby bars full 3553(a) reconsideration; no required reevaluation. |
| Can a district court use 3553(a) factors to set the final reduced sentence when no specific reduction is requested? | Chapman allows 3553(a) review to avoid unjust reduction. | No; Chapman concerns different facts and not mandatory review here. | No mandatory 3553(a) based review; reduction based on assistance value. |
| Does Shelby bar any consideration of 3553(a) factors at all in Rule 35(b)? | Shelby does not permit full resentencing; 3553(a) not for full review. | Rule 35(b) may ignore 3553(a) factors entirely. | Shelby controls; 3553(a) not used to set full sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chapman, 532 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2008) (reserved whether district court must consider 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Shelby, 584 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 35(b) does not permit full resentencing; limits consideration)
- United States v. McGee, 508 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional limits on Rule 35(b) appeals; not review of discretion)
- United States v. Ross, 280 Fed. Appx. 896 (11th Cir. 2008) (recognizes Shelby rule controlling Rule 35(b) proceedings)
- United States v. Doe, 351 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizes limited scope of Rule 35(b) reductions)