Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01946/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01946-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kris Koglin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KRIS KOGLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Nos. 1:12CR00141-009 & 1:12CR00204-001 — Larry J. McKinney, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED OCTOBER 2, 2015 — DECIDED MAY 17, 2016

____________________

Before POSNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

SYKES, Circuit Judge. Kris Koglin appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive 2014 amendment to the drug-quantity sentencing guideline. Because the

amendment does not have the effect of lowering Koglin’s 

guideline sentencing range, he is not eligible for a sentence 

reduction.

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
2 Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946

I. Background

In September 2012, a federal grand jury indicted Koglin 

and ten others on several charges stemming from their 

involvement in a large marijuana-distribution ring in 

Indianapolis. Koglin was charged with conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute and to distribute 1,000 kilograms or 

more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In a separate but related case, the 

government later charged Koglin by information with

engaging in a monetary transaction worth more than $10,000 

involving property he knew to be derived from criminal 

activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.

Koglin pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and the drugmoney counts and agreed to assist the government in its 

prosecution of his coconspirators. To calculate the recommended sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, 

Koglin’s presentence report (“PSR”) began with a base 

offense level of 32, which applied to crimes involving 1,000 

to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4) 

(Nov. 1, 2013). Koglin qualified for a “mitigating role” 

adjustment under § 3B1.2(b), so his base offense level 

dropped from 32 to 30. Id. § 2D1.1(a)(5) (providing that if the 

defendant qualifies for a § 3B1.2 “mitigating role” adjustment and his base offense level is 32, the base offense level is 

reduced to 30). The PSR then recommended the following 

Chapter 2 and 3 adjustments: a two-level enhancement for 

possessing multiple firearms in connection with a drugtrafficking offense, id. § 2D1.1(b)(1); a two-level “mitigating 

role” reduction under § 3B1.2(b) (on top of the two-level 

reduction in the base offense level under the drug-quantity 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946 3

guideline, § 2D1.1(a)(5)); and a three-level reduction for 

accepting responsibility, id. § 3E1.1. This yielded an adjusted 

offense level of 27, which when combined with Koglin’s 

criminal history category of 1, produced a guideline sentencing range of 70 to 87 months in prison.

Koglin’s conspiracy conviction, however, carried a tenyear minimum sentence, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), so his 

guideline “range” became 120 months, see U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.1(b) (“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence 

is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline 

range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be 

the guideline sentence.”).

At sentencing the government moved for a sentence below the statutory minimum to reflect Koglin’s substantial 

assistance, as permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The district 

judge adopted the PSR’s recommendations, granted the 

government’s § 3553(e) motion, and sentenced Koglin to 

concurrent terms of 57 months.

In November 2014 the United States Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, 

lowering the recommended penalties for most drug crimes 

by reducing the base offense levels in the § 2D1.1 Drug 

Quantity Table by two levels. As relevant here, Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level for offenses involving 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana from 32 to 30. 

U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. The Commission later made 

this amendment retroactive. See id. § 1B1.10(d).

Relying on Amendment 782, Koglin moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The government agreed 

that Koglin was eligible for a sentence reduction but asked 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
4 Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946

the judge to exercise his discretion to deny Koglin an “unjustified windfall” of a further sentence reduction. The judge 

denied Koglin’s motion, but for a different reason: The judge 

concluded that Koglin was ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of 

lowering [his] guideline range.”

II. Discussion

Section § 3582(c)(2) provides that the district court may

reduce the prison term of a defendant who was “sentenced 

to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that 

has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” The statute permits the court to reduce the defendant’s prison term “after considering the factors set forth in 

section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” but 

only “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

§ 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added.)

The Supreme Court has held that § 3582(c)(2) establishes

a two-step inquiry: First, the court determines whether a 

sentence reduction is consistent with the applicable policy 

statements promulgated by the Sentencing Commission; if it 

is, then the court considers whether a reduction is warranted 

after weighing any applicable § 3553(a) factors. Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). This appeal begins 

and ends with step one.

The relevant policy statement is found at § 1B1.10 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. That section provides that a sentence 

reduction is not authorized if the relevant amendment, 

though retroactive, “does not have the effect of lowering the 

defendant’s applicable guideline range.” § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946 5

Section 1B1.10(b)(1) directs the court to “determine the 

amended guideline range that would have been applicable ... if the amendment(s) to the guidelines ... had been in 

effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” The policy 

statement also makes clear that the inquiry is a limited 

recalculation of the guideline range, not a full-blown resentencing: The policy statement instructs the court to replace

the old provision with the new provision and “leave all 

other guideline application decisions unaffected.” 

§ 1B1.10(b)(1).

Koglin seizes on that last phrase—“leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”—and argues that we

should look only to the change effected by Amendment 782—that is, the two-level drop in the base offense 

level in the Drug Quantity Table—and ignore any potential 

interaction between the amendment and other parts of the 

guidelines.

This argument misunderstands § 1B1.10(b)(1). The

phrase “leave all other guideline application decisions 

unaffected” simply instructs the court to apply only the 

amendments listed in § 1B1.10(d) and avoid relitigating the 

factual findings made in the original sentencing decision. 

The policy statement does not instruct the court to ignore the 

effect of the amended guideline on other guideline provisions that, in combination, produced the defendant’s sentencing range. As we’ve explained before, “[t]he ‘sentencing 

range’ that must have been changed to permit relief under 

§ 3582(c)(2) is not the base offense level or any other intermediate step in the guideline calculation, but the bottomline, final range that was the basis for the sentence.” United 

States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2015). And “[r]elief 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
6 Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946

is not available if a retroactive amendment ‘does not have 

the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline 

range.’” Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)).

So what matters under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 is 

whether the “bottom-line, final range” would have been 

lower if the amendment had been in effect when the defendant was sentenced. Id. If the range would not have been 

lower, then the defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction and the inquiry ends.

To return to this case, the key question is whether 

Koglin’s guideline range would have been lower had 

Amendment 782 been in place when he was originally 

sentenced. The answer is “no.”

Before we explain why, we pause to note that the government’s response to Koglin’s motion in the district court 

focused on whether the ten-year statutory minimum sentence on the conspiracy count made Koglin ineligible for a 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The government 

correctly stated that it does not. One could be forgiven for 

thinking otherwise: Regardless of the reduction in the base 

offense level brought about by Amendment 782, the mandatory minimum keeps Koglin’s guideline sentence at 

120 months.

But § 1B1.10(c) instructs courts to ignore mandatory minimums when determining whether a defendant is eligible for 

a sentence reduction in situations where, as here, the sentencing court “had the authority to impose a sentence below 

the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a 

government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial 

assistance to authorities.” Application Note 4 explains how 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946 7

this provision might operate in a case like Koglin’s: The 

court can calculate the substantial-assistance credit originally 

awarded as a percentage reduction from the mandatory 

minimum, then apply that same percentage reduction to the 

amended guideline range, which is first calculated without 

regard to the mandatory minimum. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 

n.4(B).

Although the government got this part of the analysis 

right, the rest of its response in the district court was a 

“swing and a miss,” as the prosecutor put it at oral argument. After conceding that Koglin was eligible for a sentence 

reduction notwithstanding the mandatory minimum, the 

government urged the judge to decline to award the “windfall” of a further sentence reduction. By proceeding directly 

to a discussion of the court’s discretion, the government 

omitted an important step in the analysis. If Amendment 782 

does not actually have the effect of lowering Koglin’s guideline range, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction and the 

inquiry proceeds no further.

Although the government overlooked this point in the 

district court, it was not lost on the judge, who reached the 

correct result. And despite this misstep, the government 

now defends the judge’s decision for the right reason.

As we’ve explained, when Koglin was originally sentenced, the base offense level for his counts of conviction—

offenses involving 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana—

was 32. Under § 2D1.1(a)(5), however, a defendant (like 

Koglin) who qualifies for a “mitigating role” adjustment 

under § 3B1.2 and whose base offense level is 32 gets the 

benefit of a two-level reduction in the base offense level, to 

level 30. Koglin received this reduction at sentencing. But 

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8
8 Nos. 15-1943 & 15-1946

when Amendment 782 is applied, the base offense level for 

this drug type and quantity drops from 32 to 30, knocking 

out the two-level reduction under § 2D1.1(a)(5), which 

applies only to defendants whose base offense level is 32. In 

other words, the two-level reduction in Amendment 782 

cancels out the two-level reduction in § 2D1.1(a)(5), and the 

net effect of the amendment on Koglin’s guideline range is 

zero.

Accordingly, the judge correctly concluded that because 

Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering 

Koglin’s guideline range, he is ineligible for a sentence 

reduction.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-1946 Document: 31 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 8