NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued July 9, 2013
Decided July 17, 2013
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 13‐1292
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 99 CR 945‐1
WILL CARTHAN
Defendant‐Appellant. James B. Zagel,
Judge.
ORDER
Will Carthan appeals from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to
reduce the 34‐year sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiring to distribute crack
cocaine.
In 2001 Carthan was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. In
2004 he entered into a sentencing agreement with the government to procure a
recommendation for a departure from the then‐mandatory guidelines. The agreement
stated that his guidelines sentencing range (actually a point) was life imprisonment because
No. 13‐1292 Page 2
of his total offense level of 48 (capped at 43). In exchange for Carthan’s cooperation and
waiver of his right to appeal, the government agreed to move for a downward departure in
accordance with U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The agreement recommended a sentence of 34 years, and
the judge imposed it.
In 2012 Carthan moved under section § 3582(c)(2), on the basis of the Sentencing
Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750, which by revising the sentencing
tables for crack‐cocaine offenses reduced Carthan’s base offense level (not his total offense
level of 48, capped at 43) from 38 to 34. But because of the increases in his base offense level
that had jacked it up to 48, the four‐level reduction in his base level did not bring his total
offense level below 43 (but only to 48 – 4 = 44)—the floor in the Sentencing Table for a life‐
imprisonment guidelines range. Because a sentence reduction is not authorized by
section 3582(c)(2) unless a retroactive amendment (such as Amendment 750) lowers the
defendantʹs sentencing range, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), the district court had no
authority to grant the requested relief. See United States v. Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318–19 (7th
Cir. 2011); United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Knox, 573
F.3d 441, 450 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Thompson, 682 F.3d 285, 290 (3d Cir. 2012). The
judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED.