Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE FOSTER, ALSO KNOWN AS MARCUS, Defendant-Appellant.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iillinois, Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 242-12
Robert W. Gettlemain, Judge.
Order

Maurice Foster requested, and received, a reduction in his sentence under recent changes to the sentencing Guidelines for crack-cocaine offenses, changes made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2).

The reduction, to 292 months' imprisonment, is the maximum allowed by the Commission's amendments. Foster contends that he should have received an even lower sentence. He maintains that the district court should have reduced his criminal-history level. But retroactive changes to the Guidelines do not authorize full resentencing; they allow lower sentences only to the extent that the Sentencing Commission has specifically authorized them by amending specific Guidelines. See Dillion v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010). This means that a district judge cannot consider any issues other than those specified by the Commission. See United States v. Davis, No. 11-1313 (7th Cir. May 31, 2012), slip op. 22-25. The Sentencing Commission has not made any retroactive change to the rules for determining criminal history, so the district court rightly declined to reduce Foster's sentence on this account.

AFFIRMED

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

United States v. Foster
(Jun 4, 2012)