# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 18, 2017 *

Decided October 18, 2017

Before

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 16–2285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v

.

ARCHIE BRADFIELD,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:08

‐ CR

‐ 10091

‐ 001

Michael M. Mihm,

J udge

.

O R D E R

Archie Bradfield pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess and

distribute crack cocaine in 2009, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and the district court

sentenced him to 242 months’ imprisonment. Five years later, the Sentencing

Commission adopted Amendment 782, reducing the base

‐ offense level for most drug

offenses by two levels. See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 782 (2014); id.

, amend. 788

(making Amendment 782 retroactive). In 2015 Bradfield moved to have his sentence

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the issues

have been authoritatively decided. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(B). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 16

‐ 2285 Page 2

reduced under this amendment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the district judge reduced

his sentence to 235 months’ imprisonment. This appeal concerns a later motion that

Bradfield filed under the same amendment. Because the later motion is an improper

successive attempt to get relief under the same amendment, we affirm.

Nine months after Bradfield received relief under his first motion, he filed his

second § 3582(c)(2) motion, again asking the district court to reduce his sentence under

Amendment 782. The judge denied the motion, reasoning that Bradfield was not

entitled to a second reduction based on the same amendment. The judge also noted that

Bradfield sought to relitigate the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing, but we

already had deemed that argument frivolous in a prior order. See United States v.

Bradfield

, 376 F. App’x 620, 622–24 (7th Cir. 2010). A month after the court’s denial,

Bradfield filed another motion where he yet again asked for a sentence reduction under

§ 3582 by invoking Amendment 782 and again challenged the amount of cocaine

attributed to him at sentencing. The judge denied this motion, and Bradfield appeals

that denial.

The judge’s denial of the third motion, which is the only decision properly before

us, was correct. A district court cannot grant a successive § 3582(c)(2) motion filed more

than 14 days after the court has decided the first motion. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(b); United

States v. Beard

, 745 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Redd

, 630 F.3d 649, 651

(7th Cir. 2011). Bradfield already benefited from a sentence reduction that Amendment

782 authorizes when the district judge granted his first motion in 2015. Therefore the

judge did not err in denying Bradfield’s third motion, filed the next year, under the

same amendment. Moreover, even if this motion were Bradfield’s first, the judge could

not have granted the relief Bradfield sought in it. Bradfield was attempting to relitigate

the drug weight used to calculate the guidelines range provided at sentencing.

“[Section] 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing. Instead, it permits a sentence

reduction within the narrow bounds” the Commission established. Dillon v. United

States

, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).

We thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.