NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 October 18, 2017*
Decided October 18, 2017
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
No. 16–2285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Central District of Illinois.
v. No. 1:08‐CR‐10091‐001
ARCHIE BRADFIELD, Michael M. Mihm,
Defendant‐ Appellant. Judge.
O R D E R
Archie Bradfield pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess and
distribute crack cocaine in 2009, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and the district court
sentenced him to 242 months’ imprisonment. Five years later, the Sentencing
Commission adopted Amendment 782, reducing the base‐offense level for most drug
offenses by two levels. See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 782 (2014); id., amend. 788
(making Amendment 782 retroactive). In 2015 Bradfield moved to have his sentence
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the issues
have been authoritatively decided. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).
No. 16‐2285 Page 2
reduced under this amendment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the district judge reduced
his sentence to 235 months’ imprisonment. This appeal concerns a later motion that
Bradfield filed under the same amendment. Because the later motion is an improper
successive attempt to get relief under the same amendment, we affirm.
Nine months after Bradfield received relief under his first motion, he filed his
second § 3582(c)(2) motion, again asking the district court to reduce his sentence under
Amendment 782. The judge denied the motion, reasoning that Bradfield was not
entitled to a second reduction based on the same amendment. The judge also noted that
Bradfield sought to relitigate the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing, but we
already had deemed that argument frivolous in a prior order. See United States v.
Bradfield, 376 F. App’x 620, 622–24 (7th Cir. 2010). A month after the court’s denial,
Bradfield filed another motion where he yet again asked for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582 by invoking Amendment 782 and again challenged the amount of cocaine
attributed to him at sentencing. The judge denied this motion, and Bradfield appeals
that denial.
The judge’s denial of the third motion, which is the only decision properly before
us, was correct. A district court cannot grant a successive § 3582(c)(2) motion filed more
than 14 days after the court has decided the first motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b); United
States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651
(7th Cir. 2011). Bradfield already benefited from a sentence reduction that Amendment
782 authorizes when the district judge granted his first motion in 2015. Therefore the
judge did not err in denying Bradfield’s third motion, filed the next year, under the
same amendment. Moreover, even if this motion were Bradfield’s first, the judge could
not have granted the relief Bradfield sought in it. Bradfield was attempting to relitigate
the drug weight used to calculate the guidelines range provided at sentencing.
“[Section] 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing. Instead, it permits a sentence
reduction within the narrow bounds” the Commission established. Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).
We thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.