United States v. Jacoby Walker, 21-1551

Background

Walker was convicted in 1998 of leading a large drug-distribution enterprise (powder and crack cocaine), employing a minor, and two firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); he was sentenced to life on the drug counts plus a consecutive 30-year § 924(c) term.
At sentencing the judge attributed drug quantities higher than those charged or found by the jury; the Seventh Circuit affirmed on direct appeal in United States v. Frazier.
Walker raised an Apprendi claim on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; the district court found it procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, without prejudice given the trial record.
Walker later sought reductions under Amendment 782 (§ 3582(c)(2)) and § 404 of the First Step Act (retroactive Fair Sentencing Act relief). The district court reduced the drug sentences to 360 months (30 years) and imposed a total aggregate term of 60 years including the consecutive § 924(c) term.
On appeal Walker argued (1) Apprendi governs First Step Act resentencing so the judge erred by relying on judicially found drug quantities; (2) the court misweighed § 3553(a) factors by discounting his postsentencing rehabilitation and a codefendant disparity; and (3) the court erred in assigning criminal-history points for a 1992 conviction.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: Apprendi did not compel reconsideration in the First Step Act proceeding; the district court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors; and the criminal-history error was harmless.

Issues

Issue	Walker's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Apprendi requires the district court in a First Step Act resentencing to disregard judge-found drug quantities	Apprendi requires jury findings of drug quantity; judge should not rely on uncharged/unjury-found quantities at resentencing	§ 404 does not obligate district courts to apply intervening decisions like Apprendi on resentencing; collateral-review rejection need not be relitigated	Court: Apprendi does not govern here; district court reasonably declined to reopen its prior collateral-review ruling (citing Fowowe)
Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to give Walker’s postsentencing rehabilitation greater weight under § 3553(a)(1)	Walker’s education, discipline, and support warrant a below-Guidelines reduction	The court acknowledged those factors but permissibly weighed them against offense seriousness and deterrence needs	Court: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably balanced § 3553(a) factors
Whether a sentencing disparity between codefendants under the First Step Act required a lower sentence	Disparity (codefendant resentenced to 27 years) shows unfairness and merits reduction under § 3553(a)(6)	Both received bottom-of-Guidelines resentences; differences result from differing charges and consecutive § 924(c) exposure	Court: No reversible disparity; within-Guidelines re-sentencings do not typically warrant reversal (citing Castro-Aguirre)
Whether using Walker’s 1992 conviction to add criminal-history points was erroneous and prejudicial	The 1992 conviction was treated as relevant conduct at the 1998 trial and should not have counted; removing it yields a lower Guidelines range	Government concedes error but contends it is harmless because other points keep the range at 360–life and the court would not have varied downward	Court: Error acknowledged but harmless; Guidelines range remains 360 months–life and judge stated he would not have imposed a lower sentence (citing Clark)

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (criminal penalties must be based on jury findings for facts that increase maximum sentence)
United States v. Fowowe, 1 F.4th 522 (7th Cir. 2021) (First Step Act resentencing does not automatically require district courts to apply intervening judicial rulings like Apprendi)
United States v. Castro-Aguirre, 983 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2020) (within-Guidelines sentences reflect consideration of sentencing disparities)
United States v. Clark, 906 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2018) (Guidelines miscalculation can be harmless where the court would have imposed the same sentence)
United States v. Frazier, 213 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming Walker’s original conviction and sentence)