# Un ited Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d March 14, 2013 * Deci ded March 18, 2013 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROO K, Chief Ju dge JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circ uit Judge No. 12-3535 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. COM PTON JONES, Defen dant-Appellant. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Illi noi s, Eas ter n Di vis i on. No. 96 CR 553 Rebecca R. P allmeyer, Judge

. O R D E R Compto n Jones, a hi gh-ranking memb er o f the Gangster Di sci ples s tr eet g ang, was i ndi cted i n 1997 on a host of drug-r elated charges. A j ury conv i cted hi m of N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i te d o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i th F e d

. R

. A p p . P

. 3 2

. 1

Th i s s u c c e s s i v e a p p e a l h a s b e e n s u b m i tt e d to th e o r i g i n a l p a n e l p u r s u a n t to * I n te r n a l O p e r a ti n g P r o c e d u r e 6 ( b )

. A fte r e x a m i n i n g the b r i e f s a n d th e r e c o r d , w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a t o r a l a r g

u m e n t i s u n

n e c e s s a r y . S e e F E D . R

. A P P . P

. 3 4 ( a ) ; C IR . R

. 3 4 ( f )

.N o . 1 2

- 3 5 3 5 P a g e 2

partici patin g ina drug conspi racy, 21 U.S .C. § 846, i nduc i ng and employin g mi nors to partici pate ina drug conspi racy, 21 U.S .C. §§ 861(a)(1) ,(2), and possess i on wi th i ntent t o di strib ute a contr olled subs tance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Th e di stric t court found that “at least 1.5 kilograms of crack or 150 kilograms of powder [were] i nvolv ed i n thi s conspi racy o r [were] fore seeable – or chargeable t o Mr . Jones bec ause they were foreseeable to hi m,” and s entenced hi m to a t erm of 420 months’ im pris onment. The gov ernment pre sented evidenc e that a far large r quantity of drugs was attribu table to Jones, bu t the cour t ex plai ned that this was “overk i ll,” becau se a fi ndi ng that at least 1.5 kilograms was attr i butable to Jones yield ed a base offen se level of 38. Thi s was the hi ghest offense level availabl e under the then-appli cable drug quanti ty t able. In Nov ember 2011, followi ng Amendments 748 and 750 to the U.S . Sente nci ng Gui deli nes, Jones moved for a reducti on of hi s sen tence pursuant to 18 U.S .C. § 3582(c) (2). T hese amend ments reduced the bas e offense levels for defendants responsible for less than 8.4 ki logr ams of c rack cocai ne. In an earlier § 3582(c )(2) proceeding bas ed on separate amendments to t he gui deli nes, however, t he di stric t court found that the quantity of crack cocai ne attr ibutable to Mr . Jones “exceeded, by many multi ples, 4.5 ki logr ams” ( i.e ., was c omfort ably more t han 8.4 ki logr ams; the lowest possi ble mu ltip le, two, yields 9 ki logr ams) . Jones offered no evidenc e to contest this deter mi nati on i n hi s renewed moti on to reduce hi s sen tence, and acc or di ngly, t he court conclu ded that Jones was n ot e li gib le for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Jones argues that it was i nappropr i ate for the di stric t court to find that t he amount of crack cocai ne attr ibutable to hi m “exceeded, by many multi ples, 4.5 kilograms” whenthe sentenci ng court fo und only that Jones was responsi ble for “mor e than 1.5 kilograms.” As we h ave ex plai ned, however, “[n]othing prevent s a di stric t court fro m maki ng new fi ndi ngs of fact wh en ruli ng on a § 3582(c)( 2) moti on, so long as those fi ndi ngs are not i nconsi stent wi th those made at t he origi nal sentenc i ng.” United States v. Davis , 682 F.3d 596, 612 (7th Cir. 2012). Indeed, s uchdeter mi nati ons often become nec essary i n adjudi cati ng § 3582(c)( 2) moti ons, and a di stric t court may consi der the re cord as a whole whenreachi ng a conclus i on on the dr ug quanti ty at tr ibutable to a defendant. Id. Here, as i n Davis , there i s no i nconsi stency between the sentenci ng court’s or i gin al deter mi nati on that t he defendant i s responsi ble for “at least 1.5 kilograms of crack cocai ne” and i ts later fi ndi ng that he is respons ible for a muchlarge r quanti ty o f crack cocai ne. Id. at 611; accord United S tat es v. Moo re , 706 F.3d 926 (8th Ci r. 2013). The di stric t court ’s judgment is A F F I R M E D
.