A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d rec or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T hu s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed onth e b r i efs an 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 5, 20 08

B efo re R IC 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 - 1834 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. AL BERT LUCK EY, D ef endant-Appellant . A p p eal from the U nited States D istri ct C ou rt f orthe CentralDis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. N o. 05 - CR - 2000 9 M ich ae l P. M c C u sk ey , Chie f Judge . O R D E R A lber t Luckeyso ught t o tak e a dvantage o fA m endm ent 7 06 to the Unite d Sta tes Se ntencing Guidel i nes M anual, wh i ch r etr oac ti vely r educed the bas e- offense l eve l s for c ra c k-c oc ain e o ffen se s. See U . S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( c) . The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed hi s m oti on t o re du ce hi s s entence pursuant to 18 U . S. C. § 3 582( c) ( 2) , and M r. Luckey appeal s. 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 - 1834 Page 2

We a ffi r m b e c a u s e Ame n d me n t7 0 6 d o e s n o ta p p l yt o Mr . L u c k e y ’ s s e n t e n c e . H e pl ea ded gui l tyt o po ss es singmor e th an5 0 g r ams o fc o ca i ne b as e an d ha d a pr i o rfel o ny drug co nvi cti on, wh i ch m eans that by sta tute hi s m andatory- m i ni m um penal ty w as 240 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. See 21 U . S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . That w as gr eat erthan the r ange M r. Lu ckey oth erw ise w ou ld h ave faced ( 188 to 235 m ont hs ), and so the stat ut ory m in im u m be c am e M r. L u c ke y’s gu id elin e s en te n c e. See U. S . S . G. § 5 G1. 1(b) . S ecti on 3582 ( c) ( 2) pro vi des thatwh en the S entencing Com m i ssi on l owers a pri sone r’ s guidel i nes ra nge aco urt m ay re du ce the se ntence onl y “ i fsuch ar educti on i s co nsi ste nt with appli cabl e pol i cy sta tem ents i ssued bythe Se ntencing Com m i ssi on. ” The appli cati on not es to U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.1 0 p ro vid e th ata re d u c tio n“is n otco n sis te n t w ith th is p olic y s ta te m en t” if it w ou ld n otlow er th e a p p lica b le gu id elin e ra n ge be c au se of a “ st at u to ry p ro vis ion (e.g., a sta tutory m andatory m i ni m um te rm o fi m pri sonm ent) . ” U . S. S. G. § 1 B1. 10, co m m ent. (n .1(A )); se e also U nite d States v. Law re nce, N o s . 0 8 - 1 8 5 6 , 0 8 - 1 8 5 7, 0 8 - 1 8 5 8 , 0 8 - 1 8 6 2 , 2 0 0 8 WL 2854 151, at* 3 ( 7th Ci r. July25 , 20 08) ( re cogni zing tha t co urt’ s a uthor i ty to re du ce s entence s u n d er § 38 52 (c ) is lim ite d by C om m iss ion ’s p olic y s ta te m en ts ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 52 3 F. 3d 881, 88 2 ( 8th Ci r. 20 08) . F urther m or e, as i de fro m two exce pti ons not appli cabl e her e, d ist ric t c ou rt s m ay n otim p os e a se n te n c e b elo w a st at u to ry m an d at or y m in im u m . See K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. C t. 55 8, 574 (2 00 8) (“ [A ]s t o c ra c k c oc ain e s en te n c es in p a r t i c u l a r, w e n o t e [ th a t ] . . . d i s t r i c tc o u r t s a r e c o n s t r a i n e d b yth e ma n d a t o r ymin i mu ms C on gr es s p re sc rib ed in th e 1 98 6 A c t.” ); U nite d States v. Harris , N o . 0 7 - 2 1 9 5 , 2 0 0 8 WL 3012 362, at* 12 ( “W hi l e the se ntencing guidel i nes m ay be o nl y a dvis ory fordi str i ct j ud ges, con gressiona l legi slation i s not.”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 33 7 F . 3d 905, 90 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( “The only pr ovi si ons al l owing f ordepartur e fro m a sta tutory m i ni m um ar e 1 8 U.S . C. §§ 3553 (e) an d ( f) . ”). M r. Luckey al so ar gues i n hi s r epl y b ri efthatthe i nfo rm ati on the go vernm ent fi l ed th at li sted his prev ious fel ony dru g con viction for p urp oses of app lying the m an d atory mi n i mu m wo u l d h a v e v i o l a t e d 2 1 U. S . C . § 8 5 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) u n d e rth e r e v i s e d gu i d e l i n e s . H e m i su nde r st an ds th e st atut e, b ute ve n i fthe r e m i ghto th erwi se ha ve b ee n av i o l at i o n, because he was char ged in an ind i ctm ent in the prese nt ca se, ther e co uld be no § 8 51( a) ( 2) vio lat ion . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Jacks on , 189 F.3d 50 2, 51 2 (7 thC ir. 19 99 ). AF F I RMED.