Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02309/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Cochran
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 22, 2015*

Decided February 4, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LARRY COCHRAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 

Hammond Division.

No. 2:06 CR 114

James T. Moody,

Judge.

O R D E R

More than six years ago, we affirmed Larry Cochran’s conviction and 405-month 

prison sentence for possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. United States v. 

Cochran, 309 F. App’x 2 (7th Cir. 2009). Since then, Cochran has pursued multiple 

collateral challenges to his sentence, and we have warned him that more of the same 

could result in sanctions. See Cochran v. United States, No. 12-2348 (7th Cir. June 28, 2012). 

Despite that warning, however, Cochran filed yet another attack on his sentence, which 

 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-2309 Document: 11 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-2309 Page 2

he characterized as a motion to correct “clerical errors” in his presentence report. The 

district court denied the motion, recognizing that Cochran was alleging substantive 

errors, not clerical ones. We affirm that decision.

Cochran, who captioned his latest filing as a motion under Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36, insists that he wants only to have clerical errors in the 

presentence report corrected and does not seek substantive changes to the report or his 

sentence. Yet Cochran’s motion asserts that the sentencing court erred in assessing a 

2-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and in 

considering relevant conduct, see id. § 2D1.1. As the district court noted, these are not 

challenges to scrivener’s errors, e.g., United States v. Gibson, 356 F.3d 761, 766 n.3 (7th Cir. 

2004), but instead are direct attacks on the calculation of Cochran’s imprisonment range 

under the sentencing guidelines, see United States v. Johnson, 571 F.3d 716, 718 (7th Cir. 

2009) (rejecting challenge to mathematical calculation of drug quantity in presentence 

report as disguised collateral attack). What is more, Cochran has asserted these same 

claims in previous collateral attacks on his sentence. See United States v. Cochran, 

No. 2:06 CR 114 (N.D. Ind. June 5, 2013), application for certificate of appealability denied, 

No. 13-2394 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2013); United States v. Cochran, No. 2:10 CV 374 (N.D. Ind. 

Sept. 22, 2010), appeal dismissed, No. 10-3865 (7th Cir. Jan. 13, 2011); Cochran v. United 

States, No. 2:09 CV 275 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 2, 2009), application for certificate of appealability

denied, No. 10-1259 (7th Cir. July 12, 2010).

Rule 36 is not a means for a district court to reconsider factual or legal 

determinations made by the court or a probation officer, nor does Rule 36 authorize the 

court to recalculate the guidelines range. United States v. Williams, 777 F.3d 909, 910 (7th 

Cir. 2015); Johnson, 571 F.3d at 717–18. An inmate who believes that inaccuracies in his 

presentence report are adversely affecting the execution of his sentence can sometimes 

file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking correction of the presentence report. See

Johnson v. United States, 805 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Mittelsteadt, 

790 F.2d 39, 40–41 (7th Cir. 1986). Cochran’s motion does allege that information in his 

presentence report has caused the Bureau of Prisons to treat him “unfavorably.” But he 

offers no particulars, see RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

1(b), 2(c)(2), 4; Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1210 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying § 

2254 rules to § 2241 petitions), and instead Cochran’s motion plainly relates to the same 

guidelines claims he presented three times previously. 

Because our prior warning did not deter Cochran, we direct him to show cause

why we should not fine him $500 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. 

Case: 15-2309 Document: 11 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15-2309 Page 3

We also warn Cochran that cases such as this one are subject to dismissal in the district 

court as unauthorized collateral attacks. Should he persist in his attacks on his sentence, 

he risks sanctions and a filing bar under Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 

1997). His response to the Rule 38 show-cause order is due within 30 days from the date 

of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

Case: 15-2309 Document: 11 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pages: 3