Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02948/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02948-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeremiah S. Berg
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 12, 2016*

Decided December 2, 2016 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-2948 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JEREMIAH S. BERG, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 10-CR-207 

William C. Griesbach, 

Chief Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jeremiah Berg filed this successive appeal challenging the district court’s denial 

of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Berg stands 

convicted of conspiring to distribute marijuana, being a felon in possession of a firearm, 

and distributing cocaine. The district court sentenced Berg to 240 months’ 

 

*

 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). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-2948 Document: 8 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-2948 Page 2 

imprisonment, which was below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range of 262 to 

327 months. Berg contends that Amendment 782 to the Guidelines reduced this range. 

It didn’t: although Amendment 782 reduced the offense levels for most drugrelated offenses, the district court did not base Berg’s sentence on his drug-related 

convictions; it instead based the sentence on his felon-in-possession conviction, which 

carried a higher adjusted offense level than did his other convictions. Because 

Amendment 782 did not alter the offense level for Berg’s firearm offense, the overall 

sentencing range remains the same as before. 

Berg also argues that the district court erred when it relied on his Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR”) to dispose of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Specifically, he 

claims that the PSR contains inaccurate and unreliable evidence about the quantity of 

cocaine relevant to his distribution conviction. Unfortunately for Berg, that ship has 

sailed. “The Sentencing Guidelines provide that, when using § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a 

sentence, courts ‘shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the 

corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was 

sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.’” United 

States v. Davis, No. 16-1879, 2016 WL 6143087, at *2 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) (quoting 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).1 Put 

differently, Berg “can use § 3582(c)(2) only to reduce his sentence under Amendment 

782, not to relitigate other sentencing issues.” Davis, 2016 WL 6143087, at *2. If Berg 

wanted to challenge the accuracy of his PSR, he should have done so in his first appeal. 

He cannot do so here. 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision. 

 

1 Subsection (d) includes Amendment 782. 

Case: 16-2948 Document: 8 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pages: 2