United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 14, 2013*

Decided March 18, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

 JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

 DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

COMPTON JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 96 CR 553

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Judge.

O R D E R

Compton Jones, a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples street gang,

was indicted in 1997 on a host of drug-related charges. A jury convicted him of

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel pursuant to *

Internal Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a); CIR. R. 34(f).
No. 12-3535 Page 2

participating in a drug conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. § 846, inducing and employing minors to

participate in a drug conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 861(a)(1),(2), and possession with intent to

distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court found that “at

least 1.5 kilograms of crack or 150 kilograms of powder [were] involved in this

conspiracy or [were] foreseeable – or chargeable to Mr. Jones because they were

foreseeable to him,” and sentenced him to a term of 420 months’ imprisonment. The

government presented evidence that a far larger quantity of drugs was attributable to

Jones, but the court explained that this was “overkill,” because a finding that at least 1.5

kilograms was attributable to Jones yielded a base offense level of 38. This was the

highest offense level available under the then-applicable drug quantity table.

 In November 2011, following Amendments 748 and 750 to the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines, Jones moved for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). These amendments reduced the base offense levels for defendants

responsible for less than 8.4 kilograms of crack cocaine. In an earlier § 3582(c)(2)

proceeding based on separate amendments to the guidelines, however, the district court

found that the quantity of crack cocaine attributable to Mr. Jones “exceeded, by many

multiples, 4.5 kilograms” (i.e., was comfortably more than 8.4 kilograms; the lowest

possible multiple, two, yields 9 kilograms). Jones offered no evidence to contest this

determination in his renewed motion to reduce his sentence, and accordingly, the court

concluded that Jones was not eligible for a sentence reduction. 

On appeal, Jones argues that it was inappropriate for the district court to find

that the amount of crack cocaine attributable to him “exceeded, by many multiples, 4.5

kilograms” when the sentencing court found only that Jones was responsible for “more

than 1.5 kilograms.” As we have explained, however, “[n]othing prevents a district

court from making new findings of fact when ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, so long as

those findings are not inconsistent with those made at the original sentencing.” United

States v. Davis, 682 F.3d 596, 612 (7th Cir. 2012). Indeed, such determinations often

become necessary in adjudicating § 3582(c)(2) motions, and a district court may consider

the record as a whole when reaching a conclusion on the drug quantity attributable to a

defendant. Id. Here, as in Davis, there is no inconsistency between the sentencing

court’s original determination that the defendant is responsible for “at least 1.5

kilograms of crack cocaine” and its later finding that he is responsible for a much larger

quantity of crack cocaine. Id. at 611; accord United States v. Moore, 706 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.

2013). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.