Afte re xa m i ningthe b r i efs an d the r ec o r d, we ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t o r ala r gum en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed onth e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . SeeF ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of Appeals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d A ugust 1 4 , 20 08 * Deci ded A ugust 2 2, 20 08

B efo re RIC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudge D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudge JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudge N o. 08
- 1940 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C O R T E Z L. TR A PP S, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe CentralDis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. N o. 05
- CR
- 1000 6- 001 Joe B illy M c D ad e , Judge . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nlyin a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 1940 Page 2 O R D E R A m en d m en t 7 06 to th e U n ite d Sta te s Se n te n c in g G u id elin es M an u al re tr oa c tiv ely re d u c ed th e b as e-o ffen se lev els for c ra c k-c oc ain e o ffen se s. SeeU .S.S.G . § 2D 1.1 (c ); see generally U nite d States v. Law re nce, N os. 08
- 1856 , 08
- 1857, 08
- 1858 , 08
- 1862 , 20 08 W L 28541 51, at * 1 ( 7th Ci r. July25 , 20 08) . In J uly20 05 Corte z Tr apps w as sente nced to 120 m onths’ im p ris on m en t a fte r p lea d in g g u ilty to p os se ss ion w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te cr ac k c oc ain e, see 21 U . S. C . § 841(a)( 1), bu t earli er this year he m oved un d er 18 U . S. C . § 3582(c)(2) to m od ify th a ts e n t e n c e b a s e d o nAme n d me n t7 0 6 . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d th e mo t i o n, a n d we a ffi r m. Trapps’s appealhas no m er i t be cause, al though hi s guidel i nes r ange w as 140 to 175 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t, h e re c eiv ed th e m an d at or y-m in im u m se n te n c e o f 12 0 m on th s. See 21 U . S. C . § 841(b)(1) (A )( ii i) . W he n th e sen ten cing gu idelines are am en d ed , a district cou rt m ay red u c e a p ris on er ’s s en te n c e o n ly “ if su c ha re d u c tio nis co n sis te n t w ith ap p lica b le p olic y s ta te m en ts iss u ed by th e Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion .” 18 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) . A red uc tion is incon sisten t w ith th e po li cy stat em en ts acc om p an ying A m en d m en t 706 ifa “sta tu tory prov isi on (e.g. , a statu tory m an d atory m inim um term of im p risonm en t)” preve nts the di str i ct c ourtfro m l owering the pri sone r’ s guidel i nes r ange. U.S . S. G. § 1 B1. 10 (n .1(A )). B ec au se T ra p p s re c eiv ed th e s ta tu to ry m an d at or y-m in im u m se n te n c e fo r h is crim e, th e d istri ct cou rt correctly recogn ized thati t lacked authority to red uc e Trap p s’s se n te n c e a n y fu rth er . See K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S . Ct. 55 8, 574 ( 2008 ) ( “[ A ] s t o cra ck coca i ne se ntences in part i cul ar, we note [ that] . . . di str i ct c ourt s a re co nstr ained by th e m an d atory m inim um s C ong ress p rescribed in th e 1986 A ct.”); U nite d States v. B lack, 52 3 F . 3d 89 2, 8 92
- 93 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( di st r i ctc o ur ts l ac ka utho r i tyt o modi fya s en te nc e be l o w the m an d at or y m in im u m u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) an d A m en d m en t 7 06 ); see also U nited States v. Harris , No. 0 7- 21 95 , 2 00 8 W L 3 01 23 62 , a t * 12 ( 7th Ci r . Aug. 6 , 2 00 8) ( “Whi l e th e se n te n c in g g u id elin es m ay be on ly a d vis or y for d ist ric t jud ge s, co n gr es sio n al leg isla tio nis not . ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 3 37F . 3d 90 5, 9 09 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( “T he o nlypr o vi si o ns all ow ing for d ep artu re fr om a statu tory m inim um are 18 U . S. C . §§ 3553(e) and ( f) . ”). AF F I RMED.