Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0330-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory C. BLACK, Defendant-Appellant. Judge.
    Nos. 12-1397, 12-1574.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted July 20, 2012.
    
    Decided July 23, 2012.
    Christopher C. Heery, Office of the United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gregory C. Black, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
   ORDER

MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Judge.

This appeal mirrors United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.2011). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Gregory Black’s sentence was reduced from 121 to 101 months because two retroactive amendments issued by the Sentencing Commission (Amendments 706 and 711) lowered his guidelines range. He did not appeal. Eight months later he asked the district court to modify that order and reduce his sentence further — this time on the basis of Amendment 750 — but the court declined because that amendment did not lower his guidelines range. This was the correct resolution. In Redd we explained that when a defendant waits beyond the 14-day window to appeal before seeking reconsideration of a § 3582(c)(2) ruling, the defendant’s request must be treated as a new motion. 630 F.3d at 650-51. But § 3582(c)(2) permits a sentence reduction only if the defendant’s sentencing range “has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” and here — as Black concedes — Amendment 750 did not lower his applicable guidelines range. Because the amendment does not qualify him for another reduction, the district court properly denied his request. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.