USA v. Dexter Anderson, No. 09-1238 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1 United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱFebruaryȱ10,ȱ2010* DecidedȱFebruaryȱ11,ȱ2010 Before RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge JOHNȱDANIELȱTINDER,ȱCircuitȱJudge DAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ1238 UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICAȱ, PlaintiffȬAppellee, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱof Wisconsin. v. No.ȱ03ȬCRȬ261 DEXTERȱANDERSON, DefendantȬAppellant. WilliamȱC.ȱGriesbach, Judge. OȱRȱDȱEȱR DexterȱAndersonȱmovedȱtoȱreduceȱhisȱprisonȱsentenceȱunderȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§È±3582(c)(2) afterȱtheȱSentencingȱCommissionȱretroactivelyȱloweredȱtheȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱapplicableȱto hisȱconvictions.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱtheȱmotion.ȱȱWeȱaffirmȱthatȱdecision.ȱȱ Inȱ2004ȱaȱjuryȱfoundȱAndersonȱguiltyȱofȱparticipatingȱinȱaȱcrackȱconspiracyȱinȱGreen Bay,ȱWisconsin.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱcalculatedȱaȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ44ȱandȱaȱcriminal * Afterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis unnecessary.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR. APP.ȱP.ȱ34(a)(2)(C).ȱ No.ȱ09Ȭ1238 Pageȱ2 historyȱcategoryȱofȱIII,ȱwhichȱyieldedȱaȱguidelinesȱrangeȱofȱlifeȱimprisonment.ȱȱApplying ourȱholdingȱinȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱBooker,ȱ375ȱF.3dȱ508ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005),ȱaff d,ȱ543ȱU.S.ȱ220ȱ(2005), theȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeclinedȱtoȱtreatȱtheȱguidelinesȱasȱmandatory,ȱconcludingȱinsteadȱthatȱa lifeȱsentenceȱwasȱtooȱsevereȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱviolentȱconduct.ȱȱStill,ȱtheȱcourtȱadded,ȱa sentenceȱaboveȱtheȱstatutoryȱminimumȱwasȱnecessaryȱtoȱreflectȱAnderson sȱaggravating conduct:ȱAndersonȱhadȱtriedȱtoȱretrieveȱaȱloadedȱgunȱduringȱhisȱarrestȱandȱalsoȱliedȱatȱtrial aboutȱtheȱextentȱofȱhisȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱconspiracy.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱimposedȱaȱtotalȱofȱ25ȱyears imprisonment,ȱ5ȱyearsȱaboveȱtheȱ20Ȭyearȱstatutoryȱminimumȱapplicableȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱdrug quantityȱandȱAnderson sȱcriminalȱhistory.ȱȱWeȱaffirmedȱtheȱjudgmentȱonȱdirectȱappeal.ȱ UnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱAnderson,ȱ450ȱF.3dȱ294ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2006).ȱȱȱȱ Inȱ2008ȱAndersonȱmovedȱforȱaȱlowerȱsentenceȱdueȱtoȱtheȱretroactiveȱamendments applicableȱtoȱhisȱcrackȱoffenses.ȱȱSeeȱU.S.S.G.ȱSupp.ȱtoȱApp.ȱCȱ226Ȭ31,ȱ253ȱ(2009) (Amendmentsȱ706ȱ&ȱ713).ȱȱUnderȱtheȱamendedȱguidelinesȱAnderson sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱis twoȱlevelsȱlowerȱandȱhisȱimprisonmentȱrangeȱisȱ30ȱyearsȱtoȱlife;ȱheȱarguedȱforȱaȱcomparable reductionȱofȱhisȱprisonȱsentence.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱtheȱmotion,ȱexplainingȱthat Anderson sȱoriginalȱsentenceȱhadȱalreadyȱbeenȱloweredȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱoffense levelsȱforȱpowderȱcocaineȱandȱcrackȱcocaine.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱaddedȱthatȱdroppingȱtheȱtermȱany closerȱtoȱtheȱstatutoryȱminimumȱwouldȱrequireȱoverlookingȱAnderson sȱconductȱduringȱand afterȱhisȱarrest. OnȱappealȱAndersonȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱabusedȱitsȱdiscretion.ȱȱAlthough theȱbottomȱofȱhisȱmodifiedȱimprisonmentȱrangeȱisȱhigherȱthanȱtheȱsentenceȱimposed 30 yearsȱcomparedȱwithȱ25 Andersonȱstillȱcontendsȱthatȱheȱisȱentitledȱtoȱbenefitȱfromȱthe retroactiveȱamendments.ȱȱHeȱassertsȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱonȱgoodȱbehaviorȱsinceȱheȱwas sentenced,ȱandȱthatȱheȱfinallyȱcameȱaroundȱandȱacceptedȱresponsibilityȱforȱhisȱcrimesȱatȱthe hearingȱonȱhisȱ§È±3582(c)(2)ȱmotion.ȱȱHeȱcontendsȱthatȱtheseȱfactors,ȱcombinedȱwithȱthe differentȱoffenseȱlevelsȱforȱoffensesȱinvolvingȱlikeȱamountsȱofȱpowderȱandȱcrackȱcocaine, gaveȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱaȱcompellingȱbasisȱtoȱresentenceȱhim. Weȱareȱsatisfiedȱthatȱdecliningȱtoȱdoȱsoȱwasȱnotȱanȱabuseȱofȱdiscretion.ȱȱAfter consideringȱapplicableȱfactorsȱsetȱforthȱinȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§È±3553(a),ȱaȱdistrictȱcourtȱhasȱdiscretion toȱreduceȱaȱtermȱofȱimprisonmentȱifȱaȱreductionȱwouldȱbeȱconsistentȱwithȱtheȱpolicy statementsȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱSentencingȱCommission.ȱȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§È±3582(c)(2);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv. Young,ȱ555ȱF.3dȱ611,ȱ613Ȭ14ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱWoods,ȱ581ȱF.3dȱ531,ȱ539ȱ(7thȱCir. 2009).ȱȱThoseȱstatementsȱinstructȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱmovant sȱpostsentencingȱconduct andȱtheȱdangerȱtoȱtheȱcommunityȱposedȱbyȱreleasingȱhimȱearly.ȱȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§È±1B1.10(b)(2)ȱ& cmt.ȱn.1(B)(ii),ȱ(B)(iii).ȱȱAfterȱreviewingȱtheȱrecord,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱconcludedȱthat Anderson sȱbelowȬrangeȱsentenceȱalreadyȱaccountedȱforȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱoffenseȱlevels betweenȱcrackȱandȱpowderȱcocaine.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrejectedȱAnderson sȱargumentȱthatȱheȱshould No.ȱ09Ȭ1238 Pageȱ3 beȱrewardedȱforȱhisȱgoodȱbehaviorȱinȱprisonȱandȱforȱacceptingȱresponsibility;ȱtheȱjudge questionedȱAnderson sȱsincerityȱandȱopinedȱthatȱfurtherȱreducingȱhisȱprisonȱtermȱwould diminishȱtheȱseverityȱofȱhisȱaggravatingȱconductȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱaimsȱofȱ§È±3553(a).ȱȱThis explanationȱwasȱsufficient.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱJohnson,ȱ580ȱF.3dȱ567,ȱ570ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009); UnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHarris,ȱ490ȱF.3dȱ589,ȱ597ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2007).ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱAFFIRMED.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
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.
