Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dexter ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-20
Citations: 549 F. App'x 556
Docket Number: No. 13-2872
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dexter ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge, and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dexter ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-2872.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2013.
Decided Dec. 20, 2013.
William J. Roach, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Green Bay, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dexter Anderson, Milan, MI, pro se.
Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge, and DAVID F. HAMILTON, 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)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Dexter Anderson appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the Sentencing Commission's retroactive amendment of the crack-cocaine sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750. This is Anderson's third effort to obtain relief under § 3582(c)(2) from his below-guidelines, 300-month sentence for several crack-cocaine and firearm offenses. We upheld the district court's denials of his first two motions, the second of which was based on Amendment 750. See United States v. Anderson, 365 Fed.Appx. 17 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Anderson, 488 Fed.Appx. 129 (7th Cir.2012). Anderson's third attempt again relied on Amendment 750, but Congress has authorized only one sentence-reduction motion in response to a given change in the Guidelines. See United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir.2011). Anderson may not use this successive motion to make a different argument for relief under Amendment 750, see id., so the district court was right to deny his motion.
AFFIRMED.