From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Fort

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Jul 3, 2014
569 F. App'x 459 (7th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-1148

07-03-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KARL V. FORT, Defendant-Appellant.


NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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


Before


RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge


FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge


ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge


Appeal from the United

States District Court for

the Northern District of

Illinois, Western Division.


No. 93 CR 20024-1

Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.


Order

After the Sentencing Commission made its latest changes to the crack-cocaine guideline retroactive (see Amendment 750), Karl Fort asked the district court to reduce his sentence of life imprisonment. The court denied his motion, observing that Amendment 750 does not change his range and that he is therefore ineligible for a lower sentence. The range for someone who distributes 8.4 kilograms of crack (or more) was not reduced by Amendment 750, and the district court had found at Fort's sentencing that he was responsible for at least 9.5 kilograms.

Fort's appeal relies on the same argument he presented in 2009, after the district court denied his motion under an earlier change to the crack guideline. Fort maintains that the district court erred at his sentencing in 1994 when concluding that he is culpable for 9.5 kilograms of cocaine base. See United States v. Edwards, 105 F.3d 1179 (7th Cir. 1997), affirmed, 523 U.S. 511 (1998). We held in 2009 that Fort's argument is legally deficient, because 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which authorizes sentence reductions under retroactive reductions to the Guidelines, does not require what amounts to a full resentencing. United States v. Fort, No. 09-1097 (7th Cir. July 13, 2009) (nonprecedential disposition). The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). The district court uses the calculations of the original sentencing except for the changed guideline range. See United States v. Wren, 706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2013). That's exactly what the judge did here. Fort's argument therefore fares no better in 2014 than it did in 2009.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

United States v. Fort

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Jul 3, 2014
569 F. App'x 459 (7th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Fort

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KARL V. FORT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Date published: Jul 3, 2014

Citations

569 F. App'x 459 (7th Cir. 2014)