Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted October 19, 2009 Decided October 20, 2009 Before… v. 00 CR 40004 RAYMOND F. PITTS, also known as LONNIE SANDERS, Michael M. Mihm, Judge

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 19, 2009
Decided October 20, 2009
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 09‐2263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff‐Appellee, District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.
v.
00 CR 40004
RAYMOND F. PITTS, also known as
LONNIE SANDERS, Michael M. Mihm, Judge.
Defendant‐Appellant.
ORDER
In 2001, Raymond F. Pitts pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and
846. At that time, the district court sentenced him to 324 months’ imprisonment and a term
of supervised release. At least part of his sentence was based on the United States
Sentencing Guidelines provisions governing offenses involving crack cocaine. We affirmed
Pitts’ conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Pitts, 322 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2003).
In 2008, Pitts filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
which allows a court to modify a term of imprisonment when the original sentence was
based on a range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
Retroactive Amendments 706 and 711 reduced the offense levels for crack cocaine‐related
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance
with Fed. R. App. R. 32

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09‐2263 Page 2
crimes, and Pitts sought a reduction of his sentence under those Amendments. Pitts’
original guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months, and the district court originally
sentenced Pitts to the low end of that range. Under the Amendments, Pitts’ new sentencing
range was 292 to 365 months, and the court again sentenced him to the low end of the
range. Pitts asked the district court to further reduce his sentence and to conduct a full
resentencing hearing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court
declined to conduct a full resentencing or to reduce Pitts’ new sentence below 292 months,
citing our opinion in United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 2826 (2009). Pitts appeals the district court’s decision, although he acknowledges
that his claim is foreclosed by Cunningham. He asks that we reconsider our holding in
Cunningham in light of the Ninth Circuit’s contrary opinion in United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d
1167 (9th Cir. 2007). In the alternative, he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court
review.
In Cunningham, we held that district courts, when reducing a defendant’s sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), lack the authority to reduce the sentence beyond the
retroactive guidelines amendment range. 554 F.3d at 709. We also noted that Section
3582(c)(2) proceedings are not full resentencings and may not result in a sentence lower
than the amended guidelines range unless the original sentence was lower than the then‐
applicable guidelines range. 554 F.3d at 708. We were aware of Hicks when we issued our
opinion in Cunningham. Indeed, a good part of our opinion in Cunningham explains exactly
why we have rejected the Ninth’s Circuit’s reasoning in Hicks. See Cunningham, 554 F.3d at
705‐09. We see no reason to reconsider Cunningham now. The district court’s judgment is
therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --