Opinion
No. 20-50077
02-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE WILLIAMS, AKA G, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
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 Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 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.