NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ
Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1
United States Court of Appeals
ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit
Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604
SubmittedȱSeptemberȱ24,ȱ2009
DecidedȱOctoberȱ26,ȱ2009*
Before
RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge
ȱȱȱ DIANEȱP.ȱWOOD,ȱCircuitȱJudge
No.ȱ09Ȭ2339
AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,
PlaintiffȬAppellee, WesternȱDivision.
v. No.ȱ93ȱCRȱ20024Ȭ4
GREGȱFORT, PhilipȱG.ȱReinhard,
DefendantȬAppellant. Judge.
OȱRȱDȱEȱR
TheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱGregȱFort’sȱmotionȱunderȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3582(c)(2)ȱtoȱmodify
hisȱsentenceȱofȱlifeȱimprisonmentȱforȱcrackȬcocaineȱoffensesȱonȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱheȱwas
ineligibleȱforȱaȱreduction.ȱȱFortȱappeals.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱheldȱthatȱdistrictȱcourtsȱdoȱnotȱhave
authorityȱtoȱreduceȱaȱdefendant’sȱsentenceȱbelowȱtheȱbottomȱofȱtheȱrangeȱprovidedȱbyȱthe
retroactiveȱamendmentsȱtoȱtheȱsentencingȱguidelines.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱCunningham,ȱ554ȱF.3d
703,ȱ709ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱHere,ȱevenȱunderȱtheȱamendedȱcrackȬcocaineȱsentencingȱguideline,
Fort’sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱremainsȱ43,ȱseeȱU.S.S.G.ȱch.ȱ5,ȱpt.ȱA,ȱcmt.ȱn.2,ȱandȱtheȱapplicable
guidelinesȱrangeȱremainsȱlifeȱimprisonment.ȱȱThus,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrict
court.
*
ȱThisȱsuccessiveȱappealȱhasȱbeenȱsubmittedȱtoȱaȱquorumȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱpanelȱunder
OperatingȱProcedureȱ6(b),ȱJudgeȱWalterȱJ.ȱCummingsȱhavingȱpassedȱawayȱsinceȱtheȱtimeȱof
ourȱoriginalȱdecision.ȱȱSeeȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ46(d).ȱȱAfterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱwe
haveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱisȱunnecessary.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ34(a);ȱCIR.ȱR.ȱ34(f).