Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 7, 2015 Decided April 21, 2015 Before FRANK… v. Kirk Acrey

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 April 7, 2015*
Decided April 21, 2015
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14-­‐‑3079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
KIRK ACREY,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 07 CR 211
Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.
Order
After the Sentencing Commission reduced the range for crack-­‐‑cocaine offenses in
2011, and made that change retroactive (see Amendment 750), Kirk Acrey asked the dis-­‐‑
trict court to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). His original sentence of
150 months already was well below his range of 262 to 327 months, and the district
judge denied his motion. The judge stated that Acrey’s original sentence depended on
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14-­‐‑3079 Page 2
the career-­‐‑offender Guideline and that Amendment 750 did not affect the prescribed
range. Acrey did not appeal.
About nine months later, Acrey filed a second motion, again relying on Amendment
750. He contended that his original sentence did not depend on the career-­‐‑offender
Guideline and that, contrary to the district judge’s expressed belief, he could benefit
from Amendment 750. He also contended that the judge should have considered his
conduct in prison, which includes (he maintains) completing many courses and obtain-­‐‑
ing a GED. The district judge denied this motion as successive—and rightly so.
We held in United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011), that §3582(c)(2) author-­‐‑
izes only one sentence-­‐‑reduction motion per retroactive change to the Guidelines. The
way to obtain review of a district court’s order denying a motion is to appeal, not to file
a new motion in the district court. Redd compelled the district court to deny Acrey’s
successive motion.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --