United States of America v. Jacoby Walker

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 27, 2026*
Decided January 28, 2026
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JACOBY WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:97 CR 88
James T. Moody,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jacoby Walker, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court’s order granting
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1763 Page 2
application of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He now argues that the
court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. We affirm.
In 1995, Walker was convicted of distributing cocaine and sentenced to three
years’ probation. While on probation, he continued his cocaine distribution and was
again arrested.
In 1998, a jury convicted Walker of several drug-related crimes, including
distribution of five or more grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment. At the time, life was the
maximum penalty for a defendant who violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) “after a prior
conviction for a felony drug offense ha[d] become final.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
Walker fit this description because of his 1995 conviction.
We affirmed Walker’s sentence, while noting the district court should not have
assessed Walker criminal history points under the Guidelines for the 1995 sentence
because it was “not a ‘prior sentence’ but part of the instant offense.” United States v.
Frazier, 213 F.3d 409, 417 (7th Cir. 2000). We found the miscalculation did not meet the
plain error test because Walker’s base offense level yielded a guideline range of life,
regardless of his criminal history category. Id. at 418.
In 2021, Walker moved to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. Pub. L.
No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, which made retroactive portions of the Fair Sentencing Act
of 2010 that lowered penalties for certain crack-cocaine offenses. The district court
granted Walker’s motion and reduced his sentence to 30 years—the statutory maximum
for a defendant with a prior qualifying drug conviction. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
In 2024, Walker moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based
on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, a retroactive amendment that
authorizes a two-offense-level reduction for offenders with zero criminal history points.
Walker argued that he had zero criminal history points because his 1995 conviction was
part of the instant offense and not a prior offense. See Frazier, 213 F.3d at 417–18. The
district court agreed, recalculated Walker’s guidelines range at 324 to 405 months, and
sentenced him to 324 months (27 years)—the bottom of that range.
On appeal, Walker urges that the district court erred in not granting him a
greater sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). For the first time, he now argues that
because the 1995 conviction could not be used for criminal history points for the instant
offense, it also could not be used to increase his statutory sentencing range under § 841.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1763 Page 3
That is, if the district court agreed that he did not have a “prior conviction for a felony
drug offense” for guidelines purposes, then his maximum prison term under
§ 841(b)(1)(C) should fall from 30 to 20 years. And his current sentence of 27 years
would wrongly exceed that statutory maximum.
To begin, Walker forfeited this argument because he did not raise it first in the
district court. Our review, then, is for plain error, United States v. Williams, 32 F.4th 653,
655 (7th Cir. 2022), meaning that we will reverse only if the district court made an error
that is “clear or obvious” and that error affected Walker’s substantial rights, United
States v. Pankow, 884 F.3d 785, 791 (7th Cir. 2018).
The district court made no error. A “prior conviction” can be used to increase a
defendant’s statutory sentencing range under § 841(b)(1)(C) if any of the defendant’s
criminal conduct in the offense postdates the prior final conviction. United States v.
Garcia, 32 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653, 663–64
(7th Cir. 2008). The statute, which targets recidivism, “makes no exception for related
conduct.” Id. at 1018–19. Here, Walker’s 1995 drug conviction became final before he
resumed dealing drugs while on probation, and that conviction was properly used to
enhance his sentencing range under § 841(b)(1)(C).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --