USA v. Rudy Williams, No. 09-10952 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-10952 Document: 00511110187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-10952 Summary Calendar May 13, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RUDY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-68-17 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Federal prisoner Rudy Williams appeals from the district court s denial of his second motion seeking a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant s sentence only where the defendant s sentencing range is actually lowered by the Sentencing Commission.1 The crack cocaine amendments at issue here are inapplicable to * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 1 See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). Case: 09-10952 Document: 00511110187 Page: 2 No. 09-10952 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 an offender like Williams whose offense level was based on 4.5 kilograms or more of crack cocaine, and thus the crack cocaine amendments did not change Williams s guidelines sentencing range.2 Because he was ineligible for relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams s section 3582(c)(2) motion.3 AFFIRMED. 2 See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App x C, Amend. 706; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). See also United States v. McCutcheon, 2010 WL 711150, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2010) (unpublished). Williams was held accountable for 17.8 kilograms of crack cocaine. 3 See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939); Doublin, 572 F.3d at 237. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.