Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02492/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02492-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence McCarroll
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-2492

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE MCCARROLL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 48-1 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 27, 2016 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 2016

____________________

Before POSNER, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Lawrence McCarroll moved under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence based on 

Amendments 782 and 788 to the sentencing guidelines, which 

retroactively lowered by 2 the base offense level for his drug 

crimes. The district court denied his motion because, despite 

the 2-level reduction, McCarroll’s guidelines imprisonment 

range remains unchanged and he is therefore ineligible for relief. McCarroll challenges that decision, which we affirm. 

Case: 15-2492 Document: 22 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pages: 4
2 No. 15-2492

By the age of 20, McCarroll was running an extensive conspiracy in which he and multiple codefendants purchased 

high-purity heroin, then diluted and sold it in McCarroll’s 

southside housing project. United States v. Jarrett, 133 F.3d 519, 

524 (7th Cir. 1998). The conspirators were arrested after a federal investigation, and a jury found McCarroll guilty of multiple drug-related crimes. At McCarroll’s sentencing in 1996, 

the district court found him responsible for distributing over 

75 kilograms of heroin, giving him a base offense level of 38, 

and applied a 4-level increase for his leadership role, resulting 

in a total offense level of 42. Combined with a criminal history 

category of III, McCarroll’s total offense level yielded a guidelines range of 360 months to life, and the court sentenced him 

to 396 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions 

and sentence. Id.

In his motion for a reduced sentence, McCarroll acknowledged that his guidelines imprisonment range remained 360 

months to life. He asserted, though, that the 2-level decrease 

in his total offense level (from 42 to 40) authorized the district 

court to lower his prison sentence to 360 months. The court 

denied McCarroll’s motion with the explanation that U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10 (as well as this court’s precedents) makes clear that a 

defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction if a retroactive 

amendment does not lower the defendant’s guidelines range. 

Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 allows for a reduction in the 

sentence “of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Section 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) of the guidelines emphasizes that a reduced term of imprisonment is not authorized by § 3582(c)(2) 

Case: 15-2492 Document: 22 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-2492 3

if “[a]n amendment ... does not have the effect of lowering 

the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The Supreme 

Court has explained that § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) is binding and that 

§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a full resentencing. Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825–26 (2010).

McCarroll attempts to avoid the limitation on relief available under § 3582(c)(2) by asserting that a “’sentencing range’ 

and ‘guideline range’ are not necessarily the same.” Because 

the “guidelines range” is calculated using a specific total offense level and criminal-history category, he posits, his “sentencing range” is lower due to the 2-level decrease in offense 

level under Amendment 782. McCarroll cites no authority 

supporting this contention, but instead urges us to look to the 

purpose of Amendment 782—reducing the prison population—and hold that a rule making ineligible any defendant 

whose guidelines range remains unchanged would violate 

that purpose by making relief unavailable for thousands of 

prisoners.

McCarroll’s argument is frivolous. There is no support for 

his assertion that the terms “sentencing range” and “guideline range” mean different things. The limitation on relief under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 is unambiguous; defendants are 

not eligible for a reduced sentence unless their sentencing 

range has been lowered. And as we have explained: “The 

‘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. Relief is 

not available if a retroactive amendment ‘does not have the 

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline 

Case: 15-2492 Document: 22 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pages: 4
4 No. 15-2492

range.’” United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2015) 

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)); accord United States v. 

Taylor, 627 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2010) (concluding that defendant was ineligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2) where 

retroactive amendment lowered total offense level but imprisonment range remained 360 months to life). McCarroll has 

neither cited contrary authority nor presented a cogent argument for overruling our precedent.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-2492 Document: 22 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pages: 4