Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01390/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01390-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Radar Tyler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 Hon. William C. Griesbach, District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, is

sitting by designation.  

 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 19, 2010

Decided August 20, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, District Judge1

No. 09‐1390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

RADAR TYLER,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Indiana, Hammond Division.

No.  2:98‐cr‐00078‐RL‐APR‐7

Rudy Lozano,

     Judge.

O R D E R

In 2002, a jury found Radar Tyler guilty of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine,  in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).  The district court sentenced him to 295 months incarceration, a total term

of supervised release of five years, and a special assessment of $300.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-1390 Document: 16 Filed: 08/20/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐1390 Page 2

After the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline ranges for crack cocaine that

retroactively reducedthe base offense levelfor crack cocaine offenses by two levels,Tyler asked

the district court to reduce his sentence, as 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) permits.  The district court

entered an order reducing his sentence by two levels but concluded that it lacked authority to

furtherreduce the sentence below the retroactive Guidelines amendmentrange.  This decision

was correct.  

In United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2009), we held that district

courts do not have authority to impose a sentence below the amended Guideline range.  Tyler

conceded that our decision in Cunningham foreclosed his argument, but he nonetheless wished

to preserve his argument in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in United States v.

Dillon, 572 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 130 S. Ct. 797 (2009).  The Supreme Court issued

its opinion on June 17, 2010.  Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010).

Dillon held that Booker did not apply to § 3582 proceedings, and so the restrictions that

§ 1B1.10 places on a sentence modification are mandatory ratherthan advisory.  Id. at 2693.  We

cited Dillon forthe proposition that “neitherthe statute northe Constitution requires the judge

to conduct a full re‐sentencing in response to a [sentence‐reduction] motion.”  United States v.

Neal, No. 08‐3611, 2010 WL 2652463, at *1 (7th Cir. July 6, 2010).   Rather, as Dillon held,

“§ 3582(c)(2) represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of

later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines.”  130 S. Ct. at 2692.  Our

holding in Cunningham is on all fours with Dillon:  because a sentence modification is not a full

re‐sentencing, Booker does not apply and district courts are bound by the minimum amended

Guidelines range.  See Cunningham, 554 F.3d at 707‐08.  Therefore, the district court was correct

that it lacked authority to further lower Tyler’s sentence beyond the two levels permitted by

the amended Guideline.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-1390 Document: 16 Filed: 08/20/2010 Pages: 2