USA v. Adam Townsend
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 6, 20091 Decided May 7, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 082498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ADAM G. TOWNSEND, DefendantAppellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 3:05cr30072 Jeanne E. Scott, Judge.
O R D E R
Invoking amendments to the sentencing guidelines that lowered the offense levels for some crackcocaine offenses, Adams Townsend seeks a sentence reduction. Townsend had pleaded guilty to counts of distributing crack cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 922(g). The district court found that Townsend
After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).
was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(A), and calculated his guidelines range for the cocaine count as 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. The court then sentenced Townsend to 262 months' imprisonment on the drug count, to be served concurrently with a 120month sentence for the firearm charge. After the Sentencing Commission amended the guidelines, Townsend sought to have his sentence lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The district court denied this motion.2 Townsend asserts that the reduced guideline range for crackcocaine offenses applies to him. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706. But Townsend was sentenced under the guidelines for a career offender, not the crackcocaine guidelines. The Commission has not lowered his applicable guidelines range, and, therefore, the district court could not lower his sentence. See United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 58890 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.
The government argues that Townsend's notice of appeal was untimely but purports to waive that argument based on its view of Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005). Townsend, however, asserts that he complied with the prisoner mailbox rule, see United States v. Craig, 368 F.3d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 2004), compliance with which would undisputedly render the appeal timely. The prosecutor does not contest Townsend's sworn statement, so we must treat it as accurate. On this understanding the appeal is timely, which makes it unnecessary to decide whether a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?