United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted May 30, 2012*

Decided June 4, 2012

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

   

No. 12‐1246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM MOORE,

Defendant‐Appellant.                 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 04 CR 676‐1

John W. Darrah,

Judge.

O R D E R

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

*

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

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(c).
No. 12‐1246             Page 2  

William Moore, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on retroactive amendments to the sentencing

guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. The district court denied the motion on the ground

that the amendment did not lower Moore’s guidelines range. We affirm.   

Moore was arrested in 2004 after he and his partner sold crack to an informant

working with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Moore then entered into an agreement

with the government and pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

and conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, id.; § 846. In the plea agreement Moore stipulated

that he had manufactured and sold crack for several years and—for the purpose of

calculating his guidelines range—that the amount of crack he distributed and conspired to

distribute was more than 1 kilogram. He also waived his right to appeal or seek collateral

review of his sentence. Moore was later sentenced to 294 months’ imprisonment, the middle

of the guidelines range. The court had calculated his range at 262 to 327 months based on

his criminal history category of V and a total offense level of 35 (base level of 36, plus 2

levels for his leadership role in the crimes, minus 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility).

In 2008, Moore moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on

Amendments 706 and 715, which lowered from 36 to 34 the base offense level under the

guidelines for crimes involving between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of crack. U.S.S.G.

Supp. to App. C, Vol. III 226‐31, 255‐58 (2011). The district court granted the motion,

calculated Moore’s amended guidelines range at 210 to 262 months based on a reduced total

offense level of 33, and resentenced him to 235 months.

In 2011, Moore filed a second motion under § 3582(c)(2) seeking to reduce his

sentence based on Amendments 748 and 750, which increased the quantities of crack tied to

higher base offense levels in order to conform the guidelines to the lower statutory penalties

for crack enacted by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111‐220, 124 Stat. 2372. See

U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Vol. III 374‐84, 391‐98 (2011). The district court denied the motion

on the ground that Moore’s sentencing range would not be lower under the amended drug

quantity table—his crime involved more than 1 kilogram of crack, which still corresponds

with a base level of 34. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.(c)(3) (2011).

On appeal Moore asserts that the district court erred when it calculated his sentence

based on 1 kilogram of crack because, he says, he is accountable for only 150 grams—the

bottom of the range in his grand jury indictment (150 to 500 grams). In support Moore

points to both the indictment and his Presentence Investigation Report, which restates the

150‐500 gram range in describing the charges. Because he pleaded guilty to only the charges

in the indictment, Moore argues, he has accepted liability for no more than the minimum

quantity of drugs that satisfies those charges.
No. 12‐1246             Page 3  

Moore overlooks the stipulation he made in his plea agreement. There, he stipulated

that “for the purposes of calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range . . . . [he]

maintained and distributed over 1 kilogram of crack cocaine.” Moore has not suggested that

his plea agreement is invalid, and he has thus waived the right to argue that his guidelines

range should not be calculated based on the stipulated quantity of 1 kilogram of crack. See

United States v. Scott, 657 F.3d 639, 640 (7th Cir. 2011). Applying that quantity, Moore’s

guidelines range was unaffected by the recent drug quantity amendments, and the district

court correctly denied his motion under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.