Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01826/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendrick D. Latham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 18, 2024*

Decided December 20, 2024 

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1826 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

KENDRICK D. LATHAM, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Illinois.

No. 01-cr-40047-SMY-2 

Staci M. Yandle,

Judge. 

O R D E R

Kendrick Latham, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for a 

reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a recent amendment to the 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 24-1826 Document: 18 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-1826 Page 2 

Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion because the amendment

would not lower Latham’s sentencing range. We affirm. 

Latham was convicted by a jury in 2002 of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or 

more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with intent to distribute 

five grams or more of cocaine, id. § 841(a)(1). Judge Gilbert, adopting the Probation 

Office’s position in Latham’s presentence investigation report, calculated a guidelines 

range of 360 months to life (based on a total offense level of 42 and a criminal history 

category of IV) under the 2001 Sentencing Guidelines. As relevant to this appeal, 

Latham’s criminal history calculations included six criminal history points for prior 

offenses, plus two points because he committed the offense while on probation, U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.1(d) (2001), and one recency point because Latham committed the offense less 

than two years after he was released from custody for a Missouri theft conviction, id. 

§ 4A1.1(e) (2001). Judge Gilbert sentenced Latham to 480 months’ imprisonment, but he 

later reduced Latham’s sentence on two occasions. In 2017, Judge Gilbert reduced

Latham’s sentence to 360 months under Amendment 782. See id., Supplement to 

Appendix C, 71 (2014)(Amendment 782); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). And in 2020, 

Judge Gilbert reduced Latham’s sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, to 240 

months on the conspiracy conviction while retaining Latham’s 360-month sentence for 

the possession with intent to distribute conviction. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 

5194. 

In 2024, Latham moved under § 3852(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on a new 

amendment to the Guidelines that lowered his criminal history category. He observed 

that Amendment 821 (the relevant portion of which applies retroactively, see U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(d) (2023)), removed two criminal history points from the criminal history score 

for defendants—like him—who committed their offense while serving another 

sentence. Compare id. § 4A1.1(d) (2001), with id. § 4A1.1(e) (2023). He also sought the 

removal of the recency point added to his criminal history score because, in his view, he

was not on probation or parole when he committed the offense in 2001. Judge Yandle, 

to whom the case had been reassigned, determined that Latham was ineligible for a 

sentence reduction. Without addressing his argument regarding the recency point, she 

explained that lowering his criminal history score from nine to seven under

Amendment 821 would not lower his sentencing range, and thus, she denied his 

motion. 

On appeal, Latham argues that Judge Yandle erred by disregarding his argument 

about removing the recency point. But a charge of legal error in a sentence must be 

Case: 24-1826 Document: 18 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-1826 Page 3 

made by direct appeal or motion under 28 U.S.C § 2255, not by motion under 

§ 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023). And even if 

Judge Yandle considered his recency point argument, it would not have affected her 

decision because the amendment that eliminated recency points, see Supplement to 

Appendix C, 354–56 (2010)(Amendment 742), was not made retroactive, see U.S.S.G 

§ 1B1.10(c) (2010). 

Regardless, the district court correctly denied Latham’s motion because 

Amendment 821 does not lower his sentencing range under the Guidelines. A court 

may reduce a defendant’s sentence only if it was “based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Even if Amendment 821 reduced Latham’s criminal history score from nine to seven, 

his criminal history category would remain IV and his sentencing range unchanged. See 

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) (2023); id. § 5A. Because Latham’s sentencing range has not been 

lowered, he is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 

817, 826 (2010). 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 24-1826 Document: 18 Filed: 12/20/2024 Pages: 3