NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 June 20, 2017*
Decided June 22, 2017
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 17-‐‑1363 Appeal from the United
States District Court for
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
the Southern District of
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellee,
Illinois.
v.
No. 99-‐‑cr-‐‑40026-‐‑JPG
WILLIAM L. CURTIS, J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.
Defendant-‐‑Appellant.
Order
After the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guidelines range for crack-‐‑
cocaine offenses, and made those changes retroactive, William Curtis asked the
district judge in 2009 to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). Curtis’s
* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 17-‐‑1363 Page 2
sentence (imposed in 2001) was 327 months, and his new range was 240 to 262
months. The district judge declined to reduce Curtis’s sentence, stating that his
crime, criminal history, and associated conduct, such as the use of a minor in a
drug business, were very serious and would have justified a life sentence, if the
statutes and original Guidelines had permitted it. We affirmed that decision on
appeal, stating that the district judge’s authority to reduce a sentence under
§3582(c)(2) does not entitle a defendant to a favorable exercise of discretion. It is
enough if the judge takes the application seriously and provides a reasoned, and
reasonable, explanation for sticking with the sentence originally imposed. United
States v. Curtis, No. 09-‐‑3213 (7th Cir. Dec. 14, 2009) (nonprecedential decision).
After our decision, the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guidelines
ranges for most drugs and made the new drug table retroactive. Curtis’s revised
“range” is exactly 240 months, set by the statutory minimum for his offenses. He
filed a new application under §3582(c)(2). The district judge again denied it, for
the same reasons he had denied Curtis’s first application. The judge stated that
he continues to believe that 327 months is the lowest appropriate sentence.
Only two things have changed since our 2009 decision: the Sentencing
Commission again reduced the Guidelines range for cocaine offenses, and Curtis
has been found guilty of two infractions against prison rules (interfering with
security devices and possession of a forbidden cell phone). If the judge had the
discretion to stick with a 327-‐‑month sentence in 2009, he had discretion to do so
in 2017 as well. For the reasons given in our order of 2009, the district judge’s
latest decision is
AFFIRMED.