United States v. Holli Wrice ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                         NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 January 22, 2021*
    Decided January 25, 2021
    Before
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
    MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
    No. 20-2035
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                           Court for the Southern District of
    Illinois.
    v.                                          No. 10-CR-40062-JPG-1
    HOLLI WRICE,                                       J. Phil Gilbert,
    Defendant-Appellant.                           Judge.
    ORDER
    Holli Wrice appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion for a sentence
    reduction pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A). That statute authorizes district courts to
    modify a term of imprisonment when justified by “extraordinary and compelling
    reasons.” The district court held that § 3582(c)’s trailing paragraph, which says a court
    *
    We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the
    dispositive issue has been authoritatively decided. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).
    No. 20-2035                                                                         Page 2
    may not modify a term of imprisonment unless “such a reduction is consistent with
    applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” prevented it from
    granting relief.
    After Wrice appealed we held in United States v. Gunn, 
    980 F.3d 1178
     (7th Cir.
    2020), that the Sentencing Commission has not yet issued policy statements applicable
    to a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act. Because there
    are no applicable policy statements, “the trailing paragraph of § 3582(c)(1)(A) does not
    curtail a district judge's discretion.” Id. at 1180.
    Gunn is controlling in this case. The district court erred when it held that the
    Guidelines prohibited it from considering whether a favorable but non-retroactive
    statutory amendment constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce
    Wrice’s sentence. The government, in its brief, agrees with Wrice that remand for
    further proceedings in light of Gunn is appropriate. The government offered an
    independent ground for affirmance in its brief, but remand will allow the district court
    to address those arguments in the first instance. Accordingly, the district court’s June 9,
    2020, order is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further
    consideration in light of United States v. Gunn.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-2035

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/25/2021