Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse J. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-09
Citations: 308 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 08-2371
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse J. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse J. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-2371.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2009.
Decided Feb. 9, 2009.
David Hoffman, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terence F. MacCarthy, Attorney, Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, and ILANA D. ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Jesse Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. On March 14, 2002, this Court affirmed Johnson's conviction and sentence. A few years later, the defendant filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of the Sentencing Commission's retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. In his motion, Johnson claimed that the district court had authority to reduce his sentence below the two offense-level reduction authorized by the Sentencing Commission. The district court rejected defendant's contention in this regard, reducing Johnson's sentence only by the two levels allowed in the retroactive amendments. Johnson now appeals.
Our recent opinion in United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2009) dealt with this same issue. In that case, we concluded that, with an exception not relevant here, district courts do not have authority to reduce a defendant's sentence under § 3582(c)(2) to a sentence lower than the retroactive Guideline amendment range. We adopt the reasoning and holding of that case, and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.