Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02323/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted January 15, 2010

Decided August 3, 2010

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2323

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

KENNETH JOHNSON,

Defendant Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Indiana, Hammond Division.

No. 2:01‐cr‐98

James T. Moody,

Judge.

O R D E R

Kenneth Johnson pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and was sentenced at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines

range to 293 months’ imprisonment.  Johnson moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on an amended sentencing guideline that retroactively reduced

the base offense level for crack‐cocaine offenses by two levels.  U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

The district court entered an order reducing Johnson’s sentence by two levels but concluded

that it lacked authority to reduce the sentence further.  This decision was correct.  In United

States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2009), we held that district courts did not

have authority to reduce sentences below the minimum amended guidelines range.

Johnson nevertheless appealed, arguing that under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), the district court has discretion to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2323 Document: 39 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐2323 Page 2

guidelines range.  Johnson conceded that his argument was foreclosed by Cunningham but

wished to preserve the issue 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), a case that

presented the same issue.  We issued an order on January 26, 2010, holding Johnson’s

appeal until the decision in Dillon; the Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 17, 2010.

Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010).

Dillon held that neither Booker’s constitutional holding nor its remedial holding

applies to § 3582 proceedings, and so the limitations that § 1B1.10 places on sentence

modifications under § 3582(c)(2) are mandatory rather than advisory.  Id. at 2693.  The

Supreme Court stated in Dillon that “§ 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.”  Id. at 2692.  In United States v. Neal, No. 08‐3611, 2010 WL

2652463, at *1 (7th Cir. July 6, 2010), we followed Dillon in a published opinion, noting that

“neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the judge to conduct a full resentencing in

response to a [sentence‐reduction] motion.”  

Our holding in Cunningham is fully consistent with Dillon: because a sentence

modification is not a full resentencing, Booker does not apply and district courts are bound

by the minimum amended guidelines range.  See Cunningham, 554 F.3d at 707‐08.

Accordingly, the district court lacked authority to reduce Johnson’s sentence beyond the

two levels permitted by the amended guidelines.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-2323 Document: 39 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pages: 2