United States v. Steven P. Nichols, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10179

Steven Nichols pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 127 months (below Guidelines range of 151–188 months).
The government moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) for substantial-assistance relief; the district court reduced Nichols’ sentence to 88 months (about a 30% reduction).
Amendment 782 retroactively lowered drug-offense offense levels, reducing Nichols’ Guidelines range to 121–151 months; Nichols moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for further reduction to 51 months.
The district court appointed the Federal Public Defender; the defender and the government jointly moved for a reduction to 83 months (approximately 30% below the bottom of the amended range), and the court granted it.
Nichols, proceeding pro se on appeal, argued he should instead get 74 months to reflect his substantial assistance and claimed he did not consent to the joint motion; the court rejected both contentions and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper baseline and extent of § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Nichols: court should calculate reduction to give him a greater below-Guidelines benefit (to 74 months) reflecting his substantial assistance	Government/District Court: reduction may mirror proportion of prior below-range reduction; joint request for 83 months was appropriate	Court held district court did not err; 83 months correctly applied as a comparable below-Guidelines reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B)
Waiver/consent to joint motion and counsel’s conduct	Nichols: he did not ‘‘consent’’ to the public defender’s and government’s joint motion; thus he preserved claim for a larger reduction	Government: Nichols is bound by counsel’s decisions about what arguments to pursue; having sought 83 months through counsel he waived other arguments	Court held Nichols waived the challenge by failing to object and is bound by his lawyer’s actions; too late to complain now

Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (delay in execution of a sentence does not affect finality or appealability)
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000) (a defendant is bound by counsel’s tactical choices about what arguments to pursue)
United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (court may grant comparable below-Guidelines reduction when defendant previously received below-Guidelines sentence for substantial assistance)
United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (defendant who proceeds through counsel and secures a sentence may be deemed to have waived alternate sentencing claims)
United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186 (7th Cir. 2012) (district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2009) (standards regarding counsel’s tactical decisions and waiver)
United States v. Boyd, 86 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 1996) (counsel’s strategic choices bind the client)