United States of America v. Ahmad Bishawi

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 8, 2013∗
Decided November 14, 2013
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 13-2753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AHMAD BISHAWI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.
No. 97-CR-40044-MJR-01
Michael J. Reagan, Judge.
Order
Ahmad Bishawi is serving a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for crack-cocaine
offenses. After the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect, and the Sentencing
Commission reduced the Guideline ranges with retroactive effect, Bishawi asked the
district court for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). The district court denied this
∗ 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).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13-2753 Page 2
motion because Bishawi’s sentence already is at the statutory minimum, so he cannot
receive any benefit from the lower Guidelines.
Bishawi’s brief on appeal appears to reflect a belief that all defendants sentenced
before the 2010 Act took effect can be resentenced afterward—because only a new
sentence under the Act’s revised terms would reduce the statutory minimum sentence.
But the Supreme Court held in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), that the
2010 Act applies only to persons sentenced on or after August 3, 2010. Bishawi was
sentenced in 1999. A motion under §3582(c)(2) differs from resentencing. See Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 917 (2010). Nor does it entitle a defendant to reopen issues, such
as the quantity of drugs involved, resolved at the original sentencing. See, e.g., United
States v. Poole, 550 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2008). We have therefore held that persons who
received a statutory-minimum sentence before August 3, 2010, cannot receive any
benefit from the 2010 Act. United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013).
Foster and Poole control this appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --