*

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

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

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted March 11, 2009*

Decided March 18, 2009

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

                  DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL HILL,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

99 CR 50004

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

ORDER

In 1999 Michael Hill pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine

base, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2786 Page 2

§ 924(c), and possession of a firearm by a felon, see id. § 922(g)(1).  Based on Hill’s status as a

career offender and an armed career criminal, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.4,

the district court imposed a term of 216 months’ imprisonment for the possession offenses

and added a 60‐month consecutive sentence for using the firearm, see § 924(c), for a total of

276 months.  In 2007 the Sentencing Commission retroactively reduced the base offense

level for crack offenses under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, see U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C, amend. 706

(2007), and Hill, seeking to take advantage of the changes, moved to reduce his sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  He also asked the district court to appoint an attorney to

represent him.  The court denied both motions, explaining that the recent guidelines

amendments did not apply to Hill because his sentence was driven by his career‐offender

status, and that he was not entitled to counsel.  On appeal Hill also challenges his

consecutive sentence.  We affirm.

Hill argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to reduce his

sentence based on Amendment 706.  Because Hill was sentenced as a career offender and an

armed career criminal, however, the amendment does not lower his applicable guidelines

range, so the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence at all. See United States v.

Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676, 679 (7th Cir.

2008).  Accordingly, Hill had no need for counsel or a hearing, see Forman, 553 F.3d at 590;

United States v. Tidwell, 178 F.3d 946, 949 (7th Cir. 1999); FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4), and his

argument about the scope of a sentence reduction is irrelevant.

Finally, Hill attempts belatedly to attack his original sentence.  He bases this

challenge on a Second Circuit decision holding that a district court cannot impose an

additional, consecutive term of imprisonment for violating § 924(c) if that term would be

shorter than the mandatory minimum required by another count of conviction.  See United

States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008).  Here, the 60‐month consecutive term Hill

received for violating § 924(c) was less than the 15‐year mandatory minimum he faced for

being a career offender, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).  But § 3582(c)(2) cannot be used as a basis to

reopen a sentence on a ground other than a retroactive amendment to the sentencing

guidelines, see Poole, 550 F.3d at 678, and, anyway, Hill forfeited this contention by failing to

raise it in the district court, see United States v. Cannon, 539 F.3d 601, 603 (7th Cir. 2008).  In

any event, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519,

525‐27 (7th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.