United States of America v. Johnnie E. Mosley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 2, 2012 *
Decided May 2, 2012
Before
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 12-1106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHNNIE E. MOSLEY
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 06-CR-30111-01-WDS
William D. Stiehl,
Judge.
O R D E R
Johnnie Mosley appeals from the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence based
on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because
the amendment does not apply to Mosley, we affirm the judgment.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
* 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. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 12-1106 Page 2
Mosley pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm,
see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to 262 months’
imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission later retroactively amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to
lower the base offense levels for certain crack offenses, see U.S.S.G. app. C at 253 (2011)
(Amend. 713), and Mosley moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The district
court denied the motion, concluding that Mosley’s status as a career offender made him
ineligible for a sentence reduction.
On appeal Mosley argues broadly that the Sentencing Commission should have
extended the reach of its amendment to include those sentenced under the career-offender
guideline. He also argues that the district court should have considered his post-sentencing
rehabilitation before denying his motion. But whatever the merits of Mosley’s arguments as
a policy matter, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence because it had
sentenced him based on his status as a career offender and not § 2D1.1. See United States v.
Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399–400
(7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589–90 (7th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --