Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01038/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric L. Kelly
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2016*

Decided July 22, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ERIC L. KELLY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Western Division.

No. 12 CR 50049-1

Frederick J. Kapala,

Judge.

O R D E R

Eric Kelly sought to reduce his 123-month prison sentence based on 

Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines, which retroactively reduced the 

imprisonment range for his drug conviction. The district court declined to reduce the 

sentence. We affirm that ruling.

 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral 

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 16-1038 Document: 23 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16-1038 Page 2

Police in Rockford, Illinois, found crack cocaine and a handgun while executing a 

search warrant at Kelly’s residence. Kelly later pleaded guilty to possession of crack

with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and possession of a firearm as a felon, 

id. § 922(g)(1). The district court grouped the § 922(g)(1) and § 841(a)(1) counts and used 

the offense level for the latter since it was higher. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.2, 3D1.3. The court 

attributed 17 grams of crack to Kelly and, using the 2013 version of the guidelines, 

assessed a base offense level of 22. The court subtracted 3 levels for acceptance of 

responsibility, yielding a total offense level of 19. Coupled with Kelly’s category V

criminal history, his guidelines imprisonment range for those two counts was 57 to 71

months. Kelly’s guideline sentence for the § 924(c)(1) count was the 60-month statutory 

minimum, which had to be imposed consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.4. In selecting a total sentence of 123 months, the court weighed Kelly’s difficult 

childhood, history of mental-health issues, and willingness to participate in treatment 

for drug and alcohol abuse against the seriousness of the offenses, Kelly’s criminal 

history and need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public.

Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level for Kelly’s drug offense from 

22 to 20. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amends. 782, 788 (2014). That

adjustment also lowered the imprisonment range for the § 841(a)(1) and § 922(g)(1)

counts to 46 to 57 months, instead of 57 to 71 months. On that basis Kelly asked the 

district court to reduce his imprisonment for those offenses to 46 months. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). He informed the court that, since his incarceration, he had earned his GED 

and completed various courses, including for drug-abuse prevention, but he also 

acknowledged that he had been disciplined for making a weapon from a lock secured to 

a belt. The district court concluded that Kelly was eligible for a reduction but denied his

request “based on his history of violent behavior, including in particular his possession 

of a weapon capable of inflicting serious injury to another while in prison.” The court 

also expressed its concern that Kelly would pose a danger to the community if granted 

early release.

On appeal Kelly has not filed an appellate brief addressing the district court’s 

ruling but instead has resubmitted the § 3582(c)(2) motion he filed in the district court 

along with his reply to the government’s written opposition. Yet we review a ruling on 

a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, asking whether the decision is within 

broad bounds of reasonableness, not whether we would have reached the same decision

in the first instance. See United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1189 (7th Cir. 2012); 

United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009). But Kelly does not argue that the 

Case: 16-1038 Document: 23 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 3
No. 16-1038 Page 3

district court abused its discretion or find fault with the court’s explanation for allowing 

his existing sentence to stand. In any event, Kelly’s conduct in prison and the danger he 

poses to the community are proper factors for the district court to consider. See Purnell, 

701 F.3d at 1190; United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, 

we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.

Case: 16-1038 Document: 23 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 3