Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03216/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03216-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 24, 2016

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3216

DAVID CONRAD,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 4343

Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.

O R D E R

The opinion of this court issued on March 4, 2016, is amended by replacing one paragraph 

with a new paragraph.

The original paragraph on pages 4 and 5 was:

“It’s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible 

sentences, because the judge doesn’t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; 

yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise 

as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however 

effectuated, “procedural” seems a misuse of the word. But although the increase in the 

guidelines range of which the defendant complains both seems substantive and postdated his 

crime, we don’t think he’s entitled to be resentenced.”

Case: 14-3216 Document: 52 Filed: 05/24/2016 Pages: 2
Appeal No. 14-3216 Page 2

The replacement paragraph is:

“It’s true that a change in the guidelines range does not alter the range of permissible 

sentences, because the judge doesn’t have to sentence within the applicable guidelines range; 

yet the average length of sentences for the crime in question is, as noted in Peugh, likely to rise 

as a result of an increase in that range. To call an increase in sentence length, however 

effectuated, “procedural” might seem a misuse of the word. But the Supreme Court has 

reserved the label “substantive” (meaning therefore retroactive) for rules that change the 

sentence that a judge can lawfully impose. See Schriro v. Summerlin, supra, 542 U.S. at 352. A 

change in the guidelines affects the sentence that a judge is likely to impose but does not alter 

the range of sentences that he can lawfully impose. So although the increase in the guidelines 

range of which the defendant complains in this case not only postdated his crime but also could 

have had a significant effect on his sentence, he is not entitled to be resentenced.”

Case: 14-3216 Document: 52 Filed: 05/24/2016 Pages: 2