United States of America v. Cortez L. Trapps

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument*
is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP.
P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 14, 2008*
Decided August 22, 2008
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 08-1940
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CORTEZ L. TRAPPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 05-CR-10006-001
Joe Billy McDade,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-1940 Page 2
O R D E R
Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual retroactively
reduced the base-offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); see
generally United States v. Lawrence, Nos. 08-1856, 08-1857, 08-1858, 08-1862, 2008 WL 2854151,
at *1 (7th Cir. July 25, 2008). In July 2005 Cortez Trapps was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, see
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), but earlier this year he moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify
that sentence based on Amendment 706. The district court denied the motion, and we
affirm.
Trapps’s appeal has no merit because, although his guidelines range was 140 to 175
months’ imprisonment, he received the mandatory-minimum sentence of 120 months. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). When the sentencing guidelines are amended, a district court
may reduce a prisoner’s sentence only “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
reduction is inconsistent with the policy statements accompanying Amendment 706 if a
“statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment)”
prevents the district court from lowering the prisoner’s guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
(n.1(A)). Because Trapps received the statutory mandatory-minimum sentence for his
crime, the district court correctly recognized that it lacked authority to reduce Trapps’s
sentence any further. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2008) (“[A]s to
crack cocaine sentences in particular, we note [that] . . . district courts are constrained by
the mandatory minimums Congress prescribed in the 1986 Act.”); United States v. Black, 523
F.3d 892, 892-93 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts lack authority to modify a sentence below the
mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706); see also United
States v. Harris, No. 07-2195, 2008 WL 3012362, at *12 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2008) (“While the
sentencing guidelines may be only advisory for district judges, congressional legislation is
not.”); United States v. Simpson, 337 F.3d 905, 909 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The only provisions
allowing for departure from a statutory minimum are 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(e) and (f).”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --