United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 15, 2013

Decided July 22, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 13-1469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DESMOND CAVENDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Western Division.

No. 97 CR 50026-8

Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.

O R D E R

In this appeal, Desmond Cavander asks us to review the revised sentence he has

received for his 1998 conviction (after a guilty plea) on one count of conspiracy to distribute

crack cocaine. The guideline range at the time was 292 to 365 months, and Cavanderreceived

a sentence of 312 months’ imprisonment. In March 2008, he filed a motion for reduction of

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 13-1469 Page 2

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing recent amendments to the guidelines that

reducedhis recommendedsentence range to235 to293months. Notingthat Section3582(c)(2)

authorizes, but doesnot require, areductionof sentenceunder suchcircumstances,thedistrict

court deniedthat motion.The court emphasizedthat Cavanderhadnot beenamodelprisoner:

Bureau of Prisons records reflected “approximately 31 incidents of disciplinary actions,

[including a] 2004 incident of attempted murder and possession of a weapon.” The court

concluded that a reduction in sentence would pose an unwarranted danger to the public.

 In May 2012 Cavander filed a second Section 3582(c)(2) motion, this time citing new

amendments that further reduced his sentencing range. The new guideline range had fallen

down to 188 to 235 months. Cavander was thus eligible for a 124-month reduction of his

sentence. Nonetheless, the district court decided to grant a reduction of only 24 months, from

312 months to 288 months. Although this sentence is a shade below his original guidelines

range and within the 2008 range, it is significantly above the second amended range. In

explaining its decision, the court again cited Cavander’s “consistent pattern of engaging in

violations of prison rules while incarcerated, some involving possession of dangerous

weapons,threats, andfighting, whichwhencombinedwithhisprior criminalrecordofviolent

offenses, establishes that he continues tobeariskofdangertothe community.”The court went

on to note that Cavander had been involved in seven additional prison incidents since his

previous Section3582(c)(2)motionwasdeniedinOctober 2008.Thismisbehavior, it observed,

“reflect[s] his [continued] disrespect for authority.” Accordingly, the court concluded that

Cavanderremainedathreat topublic safetyandwas entitledonlytothemore limitedsentence

reduction.

We review a district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1189 (7th Cir. 2012). Section

3582(c)(2) provides that a court “may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the

factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a reduction is

consistent withapplicablepolicystatements issuedbytheSentencingCommission.” 18U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). The Application Notes to the “applicable policy statements”

instruct that “court[s] shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person

orthe community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment

in determining . . . whether such a reduction is warranted[,] and . . . the extent of such

reduction”; they also provide that “[t]he court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the

defendant that occurred after the term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 1V1.10, App. Note 1(B);

see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (“The court, in determining the particular sentence to be

imposed, shall consider . . . the need for the sentence imposed . . . to protect the public from

further crimes of the defendant.”). That is what the district court did here: it surveyed

Cavander’sextraordinarilybadrecordwhile inprisonanddeterminedthat agreaterreduction
No. 13-1469 Page 3

of sentence would be inconsistent with the considerations listed in Section 3353(a) and the

policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. Because the “district court’s reasoning

process and result were within broad bounds of reasonableness,” we find no abuse of

discretion. Purnell, 701 F.3d at 1189.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.