Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03355/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth A. Lee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 17, 2010*

Decided March 18, 2010

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

    DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

    DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

KENNETH A. LEE,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:02‐cr‐10096‐1

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

Kenneth Lee appeals from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to

reduce his sentence based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines.  We affirm.

Lee was convicted after a jury trial in 2003 of possessing more than five grams of

cocaine base with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).  Because he already had more

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3355 Document: 11 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐3355 Page 2

than one prior conviction for a violent felony, the district court sentenced him as a career

offender to 262 months’ imprisonment.  We affirmed his conviction and sentence.  United

States v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622, 628 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lee, 170 F. App’x 425, 426 (7th

Cir. 2006).  He then moved unsuccessfully under § 3582(c)(2) to modify his sentence based

on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines; we affirmed the denial of that motion.  United States

v. Lee, No. 08‐2508 (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2009) (unpublished order).

In August 2009 Lee moved again under § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction, this

time based on Amendment 709 to the guidelines.  That amendment, which took effect

November 1, 2007, instructs district courts, when assessing a defendant’s criminal history,

to treat as a single sentence all prior sentences that were imposed on the same day.  See

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2).  Lee, who had been sentenced on the same day for three armed

robberies committed weeks apart, asserted that Amendment 709 entitled him to a reduced

sentence.  The district court denied his motion because Amendment 709 is not retroactive

and thus not grounds for a modification.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence if his

guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and “such

a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements.”  The applicable policy

statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), permits a district court to modify a sentence only if

one of the retroactive amendments enumerated in § 1B1.10(c) applies to the defendant.

Amendment 709 is not one of those amendments, and so the district court had no authority

to reduce Lee’s sentence.  See United States v. Alexander, 553 F.3d 591, 593 (7th Cir. 2009).

Lee recognizes that the Sentencing Commission did not make Amendment 709

retroactive, but argues under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the district

court erred in its § 3582(c)(2) analysis by treating the policy statement as mandatory.  He

also points to United States v. Horn, 590 F. Supp. 2d 976 (M.D. Tenn. 2008), appeal docketed,

No. 09‐5090 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2009), in which a district court concluded that it had discretion

to modify a sentence despite the policy statement and applied Amendment 709

retroactively.  But Lee’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703,

707‐08 (7th Cir. 2009), in which we held that policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 were

consistent with Booker and Congress’s intent in § 3582(c)(2), and “should . . . be viewed as

part of the statute.”

    

Lee also argues that Amendment 709 applies retroactively because it is “clarifying,”

as opposed to “substantive.”  Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(2), a sentencing court must apply

the guidelines manual in effect on a particular date in its entirety, as well as “subsequent

amendments, to the extent that such amendments are clarifying rather than substantive

changes.”  But Lee is wrong; Amendment 709 is substantive.  See Alexander, 553 F.3d at 592

Case: 09-3355 Document: 11 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐3355 Page 3

(“But Amendment 709 changed the guideline rather than merely clarifying it. . . .”); see also

United States v. Marler, 527 F.3d 874, 877 n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 427 (2008);

United States v. Wood, 526 F.3d 82, 87‐88 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 308 (2008).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Case: 09-3355 Document: 11 Filed: 03/18/2010 Pages: 3