United States v. Ulysses Williams, 694 F.3d 917

In 2004 the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine with a base offense level of 36, reduced to 33 for acceptance of responsibility.
Because of career-offender status, the court first used the § 4B1.1(b) career-offender guideline table, where the base level appeared as 34 and decreased to 31 after the 3-point reduction for responsibility.
The higher of the two relevant offense levels (career-offender table vs. non-career-offender guideline) was used, resulting in a higher level of 33 (non-career-offender path) than 31 (career-offender path).
The district court then sentenced at the bottom of the initial non-career-offender range (235–293 months).
The defendant moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a reduction based on retroactive amendments; the court reduced to 188 months relying on Amendment 750, which was mistaken as it did not affect the 1.3 kg crack quantity at issue.
Amendment 706 retroactively reduced base offense levels for crack cocaine under § 2D1.1, which in this case lowered the base offense level (and thus the net offense level) from 33 to 31, yielding a 188–235 month range; the court again sentenced at the bottom of the range.
There is discussion that Amendment 706 generally does not benefit career offenders, but the court notes it is not invariably true and depends on whether the sentencing range actually decreases.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Amendment 706 benefit a career offender under 3582(c)(2)?	Amendment 706 can reduce a career offender's scale and thus benefit relief.	Forman holds Amendment 706 generally does not benefit career offenders.	Yes, it can benefit in certain circumstances, not invariably.
How should retroactive amendments affect a career offender's sentence where levels shift between § 2D1.1 and § 4B1.1?	The court should apply the higher relevant level and grant relief if the range decreases.	Relief should be limited where the career-offender range remains higher or unchanged.	Relief permitted if the retroactive amendment lowers the applicable range.
What is the proper disposition when counsel seeks to withdraw and the appeal concerns sentence adjustments under retroactive amendments?	N/A	N/A	Appeal is dismissed after counsel's withdrawal.

United States v. Washington, 618 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussion of higher-of-two-level rule for career-offender calculations)
United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2010) (retroactive amendments can affect offense-level reductions under 2D1.1)
United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2010) (retroactive Amendment 706 can decrease sentencing ranges for some career offenders)
United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2009) (Anders; Amendment 706 provides no benefit to career offenders (per curiam))
United States v. Knox, 573 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2009) (clarifies limits of Amendment 706's benefit to career offenders)
United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) (indicates nuanced impact of Amendment 706 on career offenders)
United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (note on retroactive effects on sentencing calculations)
United States v. Martinez, 572 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2009) (example of circuit approach to retroactive amendments)
United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (retroactive amendments and career-offender considerations)
United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (analysis of Amendment 706 effects)
United States v. Tingle, 524 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam discussion on career-offender relief)