Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 2, 2014∗ Decided December 4, 2014 Before… v. Emmett Buffman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 2, 2014∗
Decided December 4, 2014
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 14-­‐‑2847
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
EMMETT BUFFMAN,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 07 CR 143
Joan Humphrey Lefkow,
Judge.
Order
Emmett Buffman filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), asking the district
court to reduce his sentence as a result of a retroactive change to the Sentencing
Guidelines. The judge denied that request, observing that Buffman has been sentenced
to the statutory minimum, which is unaffected by the revised Guidelines.
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14-­‐‑2847 Page 2
Buffman’s appeal does not contest that understanding. Instead he says that the
district judge lacked jurisdiction to act at all, because the revised Guideline did not take
effect until November 1, 2014, while the judge denied his motion in August 2014. But
the Guideline is not what provides judicial authority to act (that is, jurisdiction); that
depends on §3582(c)(2). The language of the retroactive Guideline prevents a district
judge from granting a motion until November 1 but does not foreclose a motion’s earlier
denial. And it is hard to see what Buffman could gain from a remand, which would just
produce a new denial for the reason already given by the district judge.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --