Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad BISHAWI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-14
Citations: 541 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 13-2753
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad BISHAWI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 541
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad BISHAWI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-2753.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2013.
Decided Nov. 14, 2013.
Kit R. Morrissey, Office of the United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ahmad Bishawi, Youngstown, OH, pro se.
Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge.
This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Opinion:
Order
Ahmad Bishawi is serving a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for crack-cocaine offenses. After the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect, and the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline ranges with retroactive effect, Bishawi asked the district court for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied this motion because Bishawi's sentence already is at the statutory minimum, so he cannot receive any benefit from the lower Guidelines.
Bishawi's brief on appeal appears to reflect a belief that all defendants sentenced before the 2010 Act took effect can be resentenced afterward — because only a new sentence under the Act's revised terms would reduce the statutory minimum sentence. But the Supreme Court held in Dorsey v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012), that the 2010 Act applies only to persons sentenced on or after August 3, 2010. Bishawi was sentenced in 1999. A motion under § 3582(c)(2) differs from re-sentencing. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Nor does it entitle a defendant to reopen issues, such as the quantity of drugs involved, resolved at the original sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.2008). We have therefore held that persons who received a statutory-minimum sentence before August 3, 2010, cannot receive any benefit from the 2010 Act. United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir.2013).
Foster and Poole control this appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.