Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
March4,2011
Before
FRANKH.EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge
DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge
JOHNDANIELTINDER,CircuitJudge
No.064101
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
ARMEANKNOX,
DefendantAppellant.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,
EasternDivision
No.04CR818
AmyJ.St.Eve,
Judge.
ORDER
Thismatterisbeforethecourtforthesecondtime.Intheoriginalappeal,weheldthat
Armean Knox (who we continue to refer to as Armean for clarity; Anthony Knox is a co
defendant)was“entitledtoalimitedremand,allowingthedistrictcourttoindicatewhether
itwouldhaveselectedadifferentsentencehaditknownofitsdiscretionunderKimbrough[v.
UnitedStates,522U.S.85(2007)].”UnitedStatesv.Knox,573F.3d441,447(7thCir.2009)(citing
UnitedStatesv.Taylor,520F.3d746,74749(7thCir.2008)).Wealsostatedthat“thisappealis
notthepropervehicleforArmeantoraise[his]claim[forareducedsentenceunderthe2007
amendmenttoU.S.S.G.§2D1.1]inthefirstinstance;rather,Armeanshouldmoveforareduced
sentenceinthedistrictcourtunder18U.S.C.§3582(c)(2).”Id.at451.Weconcludedbyordering
alimitedremand“sothatthedistrictcourtmayfollowtheproceduredescribedinUnitedStates
v.Taylor,520F.3d746,74849(7thCir.2008),toaddresstheeffectofboththe2007Amendment
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No.064101 Page2
to§2D1.1andKimbroughonArmean’ssentence.”Id.at454.Weinstructedthedistrictcourt
“[a]fterresolvinganymotionforareducedsentenceunder18U.S.C.§3582(c)(2)basedonthe
Amendment,” to “indicate whether it is inclined to reduce Armean’s sentence under
Kimbrough.”Id.
InTaylor,weadoptedalimitedremandprocedureforforfeitedKimbroughtypearguments
topermitthedistrictcourttoadviseusofitsinclinationtoimposeadifferentsentenceinlight
ofKimbrough.Weexplained:
Thedistrictjudgeshouldholdoffontellinguswhethersheismindedtoresentence
thedefendantunderKimbroughuntilshedecideswhethertoactfavorablyonthe
defendants motion (if he makes one, or on the judges own initiative, if the
defendantdoesnot)forreliefundertheCommissionsnewcrack regime.Ifshe
decides to impose the same sentence under the new guideline, or if though she
lowersthesentencethedefendantbelievesthat18U.S.C.§3553(a)wouldwarrant
astilllowersentence,orifhedoesnotmakeapropermotionforreliefunderthe
newguidelineandsheisnotmindedtograntsuchreliefonherowninitiative,she
willthenhavetoadviseuswhethershewouldbeinclinedtoreducehissentence
underthedispensationgrantedsentencingjudgesbyKimbrough.
520F.3dat74849.Taylorremandsarepremisedonthenotionthatwecannotdeterminefrom
therecordwhetherthedistrictcourtwouldhavesentencedadefendantdifferentlyhaditbeen
awareofitsdiscretiontoconsidertheguidelinesdisparatetreatmentofcrackandpowder
cocaine. If the district court is inclined to resentence, then we will vacate the defendant’s
sentenceandremandforafullresentencing.UnitedStatesv.Billian,600F.3d791,795(7thCir.
2010).Weretain“jurisdictioninordertocompleteourplainerrorreviewuponreceivingthe
viewsofthedistrictcourtastowhetheritwasdisposedtoresentence.”UnitedStatesv.Duncan,
427F.3d464,465(7thCir.2005)(percuriam).
Armeanfiledamotioninthedistrictcourtrequestingareductioninhissentencepursuant
to18U.S.C.§3582(c)andtheFairSentencingAct(FSA).Thedistrictcourtheldahearingand
grantedtheparties’agreedmotionforreductionofsentence,pursuantto18U.S.C.§3582(c)(2),
based on amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court entered an Amended
JudgmentreducingArmean’ssentenceonCountSix(conspiracytodistributemorethan50
gramsofcrack)to130months’imprisonmentthemiddleofthenewguidelinerange.The
districtcourtstatedthatthereducedsentencereflecteditsconsiderationofnotonlythenewly
amendedguidelinerange,butalsoitsconsiderationofKimbrough.
Weinvitedthepartiestosubmitargumentsconcerningtheappropriatedispositionofthis
appealinlightofthedistrictcourt’sresponsetothelimitedremand.Armeannowarguesthat
the“districtcourt’ssentencewasunreasonableinlightoftheFairSentencingActreducingthe

-- 2 of 3 --

No.064101 Page3
disparitybetweencrackcocaineandpowdercocaineto18:1andtheSentencingCommission’s
November1,2010amendmenttoU.S.S.G.§2D1.1implementingthereduceddisparitybetween
crackcocaineandpowdercocaine.”
ThedistrictcourtdidnotfollowtheproceduresetforthinTayloronremand.Instead,the
courtproceededtoresentencethedefendantandenteredanamendedjudgmenttothateffect;
thecourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontodoso.Thedistrictcourtwastoresolvethedefendant’s§
3582(c)(2)motion,andtheninformuswhetheritisinclinedtoreducethedefendant’ssentence
further“underthedispensationgrantedsentencingjudgesbyKimbrough.”Taylor,520F.3dat
749; see also United States v. Martin, 618 F.3d 705, 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (“After resolving any
motionforareducedsentenceunder18U.S.C.§3582(c)(2)basedontheAmendment,thecourt
should indicate whether it is inclined to reduce further [the defendant’s] sentence[] under
Kimbrough.”).“Ourlimitedremandtothedistrictcourtwassolelytoascertainwhetheritwas
inclinedtoresentenceifwelaterremandedthecasetothedistrictcourt.”Duncan,427F.3dat
465.
Because the district court was without jurisdiction to enter the Amended Judgment of
November9,2010,thejudgmentisvacated.Weconsiderthedistrictcourt’samendedjudgment
asanindicationthatitisdisposedtoresentenceandtherefore,weconcludethisappealby
remandingthiscaseforthatpurpose.
As noted, Armean also raises an argument that his sentence should be reduced in
accordancewiththeFSA.TheFSAwassignedintolawonAugust3,2010andincreasesthe
quantities of crack cocaine needed to trigger mandatory minimum sentences. Armean’s
argumentthattheFSAappliesretroactivelytoreducehissentencehasbeendecidedadversely
tohiminUnitedStatesv.Bell,624F.3d803,814(7thCir.2010).Armeanpleadedguilty,was
sentenced,andhadalreadyappealedthatsentencewhentheFSAwassignedintolaw.The
generalfederalsavingsstatute,1U.S.C.§109,operatestobarretroactiveapplicationoftheFSA.
Id.AswestatedinBell,“[s]incetheFSAdoesnotcontainsomuchasahintthatCongress
intendedittoapplyretroactively,itcannothelp[Armean]here.”Id.
Accordingly,theamendedjudgmentofthedistrictcourtenteredastoArmeanKnoxon
November9,2010isVACATEDbecausethedistrictcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoenter
suchajudgment.ThecaseisREMANDEDinordertopermitthedistrictcourttoresentence
the defendant. Any challenge to a sentence imposed subsequent to this remand must be
initiatedbythefilingofanewnoticeofappeal.

-- 3 of 3 --