United States of America v. Marco Thomas

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 6, 2015
Decided January 5, 2016
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 15-1892
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
M ARCO THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 03 CR 1136
Charles R. Norgle, Judge.
O R D E R
Defendant Marco Thomas was convicted in 2005 of several federal offenses,
including drug trafficking and money laundering, for his participation in a cocaine
distribution network. Prior to sentencing, his probation officer determined his base
offense level for his drug trafficking offenses to be 38, as prescribed by the drug quantity
table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2). The probation officer found his base offense level for his
money laundering offenses was 38 because U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1) adopts “[t]he offense
level for the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were derived.” A
two-point enhancement was also added under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) because
Thomas’s money laundering convictions were for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956, bringing his
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-1892 Page 2
offense level to 40. Thomas was determined to have a Category VI criminal history
because he had two previous felony drug convictions and committed the current
trafficking offenses after the age of 18. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)-(b).
As a result of his offense level and criminal history, his guidelines range was 360
months to life imprisonment. * The district court adopted the probation officer’s findings
and sentenced him to 420 months in prison. Thomas appealed, and we affirmed his
convictions. United States v. Recendiz, 557 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009).
Five years after we affirmed Thomas’s convictions, the U.S. Sentencing Commission
issued Amendment 782, which reduced by two levels the offense levels in the drug
quantity table in § 2D1.1(c) for Thomas’s offenses and most other drug offenses. Relying
on Amendment 782, Thomas filed a motion in district court seeking to reduce his
sentence. The district court denied his motion. On this successive appeal, Thomas argues
that because Amendment 782 reduced his base offense level to 36 for his drug trafficking
offenses, he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Thomas is not entitled to resentencing because his applicable guideline range
remains unchanged from his first sentencing. See § 3582(c)(2) (stating a district court may
not modify a prison sentence unless a defendant was “sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission…”); United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2011)
(“‘[A] reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if … the amendment
does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because
of the operation of another guideline ….”’(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A)). After
Amendment 782, Thomas’s base offense level for his trafficking convictions is 36, which
is the same base offense level for his money laundering offenses. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2S1.1(a)(1) (adopting the base offense level of the underlying offense). With the
two-level enhancement he received under § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), his total offense level is 38,
and his criminal history remains Category VI. Under the applicable sentencing table, his
guidelines range is 360 months to life imprisonment, the same guidelines range used at
his first sentencing. Therefore, he is not entitled to resentencing under § 3582(c).
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Thomas was also convicted of possessing a weapon in connection with a drug trafficking offense in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Therefore, he also faced a mandatory minimum of five years in prison
to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for his other offenses. Thus, both the probation officer
in her report and the district court at sentencing stated the applicable range was 420 months to life
imprisonment due to having added the five-year mandatory minimum to the actual guidelines range of
360 months to life imprisonment.

-- 2 of 2 --