Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01345/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01345-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(A).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2010*

Decided July 23, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐1345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

DEANGELO A. CROSS

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 00‐CR‐36

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge.

O R D E R

DeAngelo Cross appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  Specifically, he argues that Amendment 599 to the

sentencing guidelines shows that he was double‐punished when he was sentenced for bank

robbery and under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using a gun during that robbery.   

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1345 Document: 12 Filed: 07/23/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10‐1345 Page 2

1

The text of this note is now at Application Note 4.  See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 642.

Cross was sentenced after he pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113, and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of the fourth bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c).  During sentencing, the court increased the offense level for the first three bank

robbery counts because Cross brandished or possessed a firearm.  U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C).

The court did not apply a similar increase for the fourth robbery because of instructions in

an application note to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 that a sentence not be enhanced for use of a firearm if

a defendant is also being sentenced for using a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).  U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1998).1

  The court sentenced Cross to 220 months’ imprisonment on each

of the first four counts, to run concurrently, and 84 months’ imprisonment on the fifth count

under § 924(c)(1), to run consecutively with the sentences on the first four counts.  The court

later denied Cross’s § 3582(c) motion on grounds that Amendment 599 did not affect his

sentence under § 924(c).

Cross maintains on appeal that Amendment 599 sought to shield defendants from

“duplicated punishment,” which occurs, he argues, when a defendant receives both a

sentence for a violent crime in which a gun was used and a sentence under § 924(c) for using

a gun during that crime.  But Amendment 599 simply altered the application note and

clarified the circumstances when a court may impose a weapon’s enhancement for a

defendant convicted of a firearm offense under § 924(c).  United States v. Alcala, 352 F.3d

1153, 1156 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Howard, 352 F.3d 332, 338 (7th Cir. 2003).  As

amended, the application note states that “if a defendant is convicted of two armed bank

robberies, but is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in connection with only one of the

robberies, a weapon enhancement would apply to the bank robbery which was not the

basis for the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction.”  U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.4 (2009).  Because Cross

did not receive a weapon enhancement for the fourth bank robbery count, the district court

correctly concluded that Amendment 599 did not alter Cross’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 10-1345 Document: 12 Filed: 07/23/2010 Pages: 2