USA v. William Edwards, No. 15-1157 (7th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 April 27, 2015∗ Decided April 30, 2015 No. 15- 1157 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 95 CR 508- 5 Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. WILLIAM EDWARDS, Defendant- Appellant. Order William Edwards sought relief under Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentenc- ing Guidelines. Both of these amendments apply certain changes to the drug- quantity tables retroactively. See 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion, rul- ing that Edwards is accountable for so much cocaine (more than 150 kilograms) that nei- ∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). No. 15- 1157 Page 2 ther change reduces his sentencing range. Without such a reduction §3582(c)(2) does not authorize a lower sentence. Edwards’s appeal contends that the district judge was not entitled to recalculate the quantity for which he is responsible; he insists that at his sentencing the judge found him accountable for only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine. He made the very same contention when seeking a reduction under an earlier retroactive change to the Guidelines. We re- jected his argument then, United States v. Edwards, No. 09- 2935 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2010) (nonprecedential disposition), and our analysis in that order demonstrates that the cur- rent appeal likewise is unavailing. Like the district judge, we concluded that at the orig- inal sentencing, the judge accepted the findings proposed in the presentence report, which concluded that Edwards is accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine per week, over a period of many years. Given that finding, the revisions to the Guide- lines do not affect his sentencing range. AFFIRMED
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.
