Opinion
24-1134
10-02-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DRAKE RYAN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted October 2, 2024 [*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 20-CR-20077-002 Michael M. Mihm, Judge.
Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge, DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Drake Wilson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Wilson was sentenced as a career offender, the district court determined that the amendment would not lower his guidelines range. We affirm.
Wilson pleaded guilty in 2023 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. At sentencing the district court determined that he was a career offender because of two prior convictions for controlled substance offenses in Illinois. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The court then calculated a guidelines range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment (based on an offense level of 34 and criminal history category of VI) and sentenced him to 240 months' imprisonment. See id. §§ 4B1.1; 3E1.1; ch. 5, pt. A.
Before Wilson was sentenced, the Sentencing Commission proposed to Congress an amendment to Chapter Four of the Guidelines that concerned the computation of criminal history points. Under Amendment 821, district courts could add only one point-instead of two-to the criminal history score of a defendant like Wilson who committed an offense while under a criminal justice sentence and had seven or more criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. AMEND. 821 (U.S. SENT'G COMM'N 2023); United States v. Claybron, 88 F.4th 1226, 1228 (7th Cir. 2023). After Wilson was sentenced, the amendment became retroactively effective. See id. AMEND. 825, § 4A1.1(e).
Wilson moved for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion because Wilson's career-offender status placed him in a criminal history category of VI, and a one-point reduction in his criminal history score would not bear on his guidelines range.
On appeal, Wilson argues primarily that the district court did not sentence him as a career offender, given its decision to vary below the guidelines range. (He also disputes the validity of one of his predicate offenses.) He suggests that the court would have varied downward even further if it had been willing to apply Amendment 821.
But the sentencing transcript shows that the district court sentenced Wilson as a career offender. That designation mandated a criminal history category of VI. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Because Wilson's criminal history category was triggered by his career-offender status, any reduction in his criminal history score under Amendment 821 would not lower his criminal history category or guidelines range. And because Wilson's guidelines range has not been lowered, he is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2).
To the extent Wilson argues, alternatively, that the district court did sentence him as a career offender (but wrongly so), a § 3582(c)(2) motion is not the proper vehicle to challenge a career-offender designation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 400 (7thCir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
[*] We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. p. 34(a)(2)(C).