Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03020/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby L. Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 22, 2016*

Decided February 22, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-3020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BOBBY L. HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Western Division.

No. 05 CR 50082-7

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

O R D E R

Bobby Harris appeals from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive application of Amendment 782 to the 

federal sentencing guidelines. We affirm.

 

* 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).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-3020 Document: 16 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-3020 Page 2

Harris pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute, and to possess with 

intent to distribute, more than 1 kilogram of heroin and more than 50 grams of cocaine 

base. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). He also pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a 

firearm during a drug-trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). His guidelines range 

for the conspiracy charge was 140 to 175 months’ imprisonment (based on a total offense 

level of 29 and a criminal history category of V). Harris also faced 84 consecutive 

months’ imprisonment for the firearm charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.4(b). After granting the government’s motion for a 25% reduction based on 

Harris’s substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the court 

sentenced him to 105 months’ imprisonment for the first count and 63 consecutive 

months for the second. 

In 2014 Harris moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence under 

Amendment 782, which lowered by two levels the offense levels specified in the Drug 

Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); Supp. to App. C, amend. 782 (2014). This 

reduction would have lowered the guideline range to 120 to 150 months. Harris and the 

government jointly requested that he be sentenced to a total of 153 months’ 

imprisonment: 90 months for conspiracy (25% below 120 months—the bottom of the 

amended range) to run consecutively to the 63-month sentence for the firearm count.

The district court, however, declined to reduce Harris’s sentence. The court 

acknowledged that Harris was eligible for the reduction but determined, based on his

criminal history and extensive prison disciplinary record, that he posed a “substantial 

risk to the community.” Harris filed a pro se motion to reconsider, which the court 

denied. 

On appeal Harris argues generally that the district court erred by denying him a 

reduction for which he qualified. But the court here did not abuse its discretion in 

making its ruling. In deciding whether a reduction is appropriate, a district court 

considers the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors, any threat to the public posed by 

early release, and the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 

cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court 

followed this dictate. It acknowledged Harris’s positive educational and work history 

since imprisonment, but acted within its discretion in finding a reduction unwarranted 

based on his serious criminal history, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); United States v. Johnson, 

580 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2009), followed by his inability to conform his conduct to the 

prison’s rules—his prison disciplinary record reflected several infractions, including

making a sexual proposal or threat as recently as a few weeks before he sought the

Case: 15-3020 Document: 16 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-3020 Page 3

reduced sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii); Purnell, 701 F.3d at 1191; United 

States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3020 Document: 16 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 3