Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 27, 2015∗ Decided April 30, 2015 Before… v. William Edwards

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 27, 2015∗
Decided April 30, 2015
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
No. 15-­‐‑1157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM EDWARDS,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 95 CR 508-­‐‑5
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.
Order
William Edwards sought relief under Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentenc-­‐‑
ing Guidelines. Both of these amendments apply certain changes to the drug-­‐‑quantity
tables retroactively. See 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion, rul-­‐‑
ing that Edwards is accountable for so much cocaine (more than 150 kilograms) that nei-­‐‑
∗ 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-­‐‑1157 Page 2
ther change reduces his sentencing range. Without such a reduction §3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a lower sentence.
Edwards’s appeal contends that the district judge was not entitled to recalculate
the quantity for which he is responsible; he insists that at his sentencing the judge found
him accountable for only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine. He made the very same contention
when seeking a reduction under an earlier retroactive change to the Guidelines. We re-­‐‑
jected his argument then, United States v. Edwards, No. 09-­‐‑2935 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2010)
(nonprecedential disposition), and our analysis in that order demonstrates that the cur-­‐‑
rent appeal likewise is unavailing. Like the district judge, we concluded that at the orig-­‐‑
inal sentencing, the judge accepted the findings proposed in the presentence report,
which concluded that Edwards is accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine
per week, over a period of many years. Given that finding, the revisions to the Guide-­‐‑
lines do not affect his sentencing range.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --