NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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
Submitted February 3, 2016*
Decided February 3, 2016
Before
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐2672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Central District of Illinois.
v. No. 06‐20028‐001
OTHIENO O. LUCAS, James E. Shadid,
Defendant‐Appellant. Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Othieno Lucas appeals from an order reducing by 18 months his sentence for
possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C., amend. 782 (2014). Lucas argues that the district
court should have reduced his sentence even further, but we conclude that the court
acted within its discretion in declining to do so. Thus we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral
argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.
See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 15‐2672 Page 2
Lucas pleaded guilty in 2006 to possession with intent to distribute at least
50 grams of crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court calculated a
guidelines range of 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment based on a total offense level of 37
and a criminal history category of IV. After granting the government’s motion for a 25%
reduction based on substantial assistance, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the court sentenced Lucas
to 220 months.
In 2008 Lucas filed his first motion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706
to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively reduced by two the base offense level
assigned to most drug offenses. The district court granted the motion, thereby lowering
the guidelines range to 235 to 293 months, and applied the same 25% reduction for
substantial assistance to reach a new sentence of 176 months. We affirmed. United States
v. Lucas, No. 08‐2879 (7th Cir. Feb. 17, 2009).
In 2014 Lucas moved again for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), this time based on
Amendment 782, which further lowered by two the base offense levels assigned to most
drug quantities in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C.,
amend. 782 (2014); see United States v. Newman, 794 F.3d 784, 785 (7th Cir. 2015). This
reduction would have moved the guidelines range to 188 to 235 months, and Lucas
sought another 25% reduction from the bottom of that range to 141 months. Although
the government agreed that Lucas qualified for a reduced sentence, it opposed the
request on the ground that Lucas posed a danger to public safety. The government
highlighted Lucas’s many disciplinary infractions in state and federal prison, and
primarily his more recent possession of a shank that showed an intent to harm others
and an inability to put his violent past behind him. The government also pointed to
Lucas’s 1995 conviction for first‐degree murder, several parole violations, and a
disciplinary action in 2014 for possessing synthetic marijuana.
The district court conducted a hearing and sentenced Lucas below the guidelines
to 158 months—an 18‐month reduction. The court acknowledged that some reduction
was warranted based on Lucas’s educational achievements in prison, but the court
declined to grant a full reduction because it concluded that Lucas’s many
post‐sentencing violations—particularly his most recent violation for possessing
marijuana—reflected an inability to follow rules and the threat he posed to public safety.
Granting Lucas’s request for a full 35‐month reduction would send the wrong message,
the court said, given the fact that he possessed the marijuana just two days after he filed
his motion.
No. 15‐2672 Page 3
On appeal Lucas maintains that he should have received an even lower sentence
and argues that the court overstated the danger that he poses to public safety. His
20‐year‐old murder conviction is too dated to bear on his current sentence, he says, and
his disciplinary infractions while in prison on the current offense do not show any
pattern of violence or aggressive behavior.
But the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Lucas the
full 35‐month reduction. In determining the appropriate amount of a reduction—if
any—under § 3582(c)(2), the court must consider any public safety concerns as well as
the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the court may consider the
defendant’s post‐sentencing conduct. U.S.S.G. § 1B.10 cmt. n.1(B); see United States v.
Young, 555 F.3d 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2009). The court here reasonably concluded that
Lucas’s many disciplinary infractions—including the one for possessing marijuana after
he filed this motion—demonstrate an unwillingness to follow rules that could present a
danger to the community when he is released.
AFFIRMED.