United States of America v. George Williams, Aka G

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GEORGE WILLIAMS, AKA G,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50077
D.C. No. 5:03-cr-00084-VAP-24
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner George Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 or for Any Relief Submitted Pro Se,” in which he sought a reduction in his
life sentence by retroactive application of the First Step Act of 2018. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-50077
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under section
401 of the First Step Act. However, section 401 applies to pre-Act conduct only if
the defendant’s sentence had not yet been imposed as of the date of the Act’s
enactment. See First Step Act § 401(c); United States v. Asuncion, 974 F.3d 929,
934 (9th Cir. 2020). It is undisputed that Williams’s sentence was imposed in
2006 and became final in 2009; the district court therefore did not err by
determining Williams was ineligible for relief. See Asuncion, 974 F.3d at 934.
Nor did the district court err by determining the General Savings Statute, 1 U.S.C.
§ 109, also foreclosed applying the new sentencing regime to Williams. See
United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent
Williams contends that non-retroactive application of section 401 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, that argument is foreclosed. See
id. at 1228-29.
Williams’s motion requesting that his opening brief be treated as his reply is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --