Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03344/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven H. Madden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 15, 2016*

Decided June 15, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐3344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

STEVEN H. MADDEN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:09CR30063‐003‐DRH

David R. Herndon,

Judge.

O R D E R

Steven Madden appeals from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive application of Amendment

782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. Because the district court did not abuse its

discretion, we affirm the decision.   

Madden pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). His guidelines imprisonment range for

                                                 

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

unnecessary. The appeal is thus 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-3344 Document: 20 Filed: 06/15/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐3344    Page 2

the conspiracy charge was 84 to 105 months (based on a total offense level of 25 and a

criminal history category of IV). The district court sentenced Madden to 96 months to be

followed by a five‐year term of supervised release.   

Madden, through counsel, moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his prison

sentence in light of Amendment 782, which lowered by 2 levels the base offense level

for Madden’s drug crime as specified in the Drug Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(d); Supp. to App. C, amend. 782 (2014). This reduction lowered Madden’s

imprisonment range to 70 to 87 months. The government opposed giving Madden any

reduction, however, on the grounds that Madden had been disciplined repeatedly while

in prison, and that the 96 months he received was still appropriate given the district

court’s weighing of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Bureau of Prisons submitted

to the court a “worksheet” detailing Madden’s misconduct while in prison. Its accuracy

is not disputed: Madden’s record includes assault, threatening bodily harm to a guard,

possessing a dangerous weapon, refusing to obey orders, being in an unauthorized

area, abusing morphine, refusing to take an alcohol test, and refusing a work

assignment. The worksheet also confirms that Madden had completed or at least started

15 educational courses but had not participated in drug treatment. And, the worksheet

notes, Madden did not have a current work assignment because he was being housed in

segregation.   

The district court declined to reduce Madden’s sentence. The court

acknowledged that Madden was eligible for a reduction but concluded, based primarily

on his extensive prison disciplinary record, that Madden is an inmate still in “need of

corrective treatment and from whom the public needs protection.”   

Madden, now pro se, argues on appeal that the discretion given to district judges

in considering grounds for a sentence reduction is unconstitutional and counter to the

purpose of retroactive amendments to the guidelines. Yet the Supreme Court has held

that the discretion given to district judges under § 3582(c)(2) is proper, and that neither

the statute nor the Constitution requires a judge to conduct a full resentencing in

response to a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010); United

States v. Neal, 611 F.3d 299, 401 (7th Cir. 2010).   

The district court acted well within its authority in declining to reduce Madden’s

prison term. In deciding whether a reduction is appropriate, a district court considers

the applicable § 3553(a) factors (though the court need not analyze each one), as well as

the defendant’s post‐sentencing conduct and any threat to the public posed by early

release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1190

Case: 15-3344 Document: 20 Filed: 06/15/2016 Pages: 3
No. 15‐3344    Page 3

(7th Cir. 2012). These considerations persuaded the district court, and us, that a

sentencing reduction was unwarranted given Madden’s “numerous and serious

violations of prison rules.”

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3344 Document: 20 Filed: 06/15/2016 Pages: 3