United States of America v. Steven H. Madden

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 15, 2016*
Decided June 15, 2016
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐3344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
STEVEN H. MADDEN,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:09CR30063‐003‐DRH
David R. Herndon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Steven Madden appeals from the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive application of Amendment
782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm the decision.
Madden pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). His guidelines imprisonment range for
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. The appeal is thus submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 15‐3344 Page 2
the conspiracy charge was 84 to 105 months (based on a total offense level of 25 and a
criminal history category of IV). The district court sentenced Madden to 96 months to be
followed by a five‐year term of supervised release.
Madden, through counsel, moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his prison
sentence in light of Amendment 782, which lowered by 2 levels the base offense level
for Madden’s drug crime as specified in the Drug Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(d); Supp. to App. C, amend. 782 (2014). This reduction lowered Madden’s
imprisonment range to 70 to 87 months. The government opposed giving Madden any
reduction, however, on the grounds that Madden had been disciplined repeatedly while
in prison, and that the 96 months he received was still appropriate given the district
court’s weighing of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Bureau of Prisons submitted
to the court a “worksheet” detailing Madden’s misconduct while in prison. Its accuracy
is not disputed: Madden’s record includes assault, threatening bodily harm to a guard,
possessing a dangerous weapon, refusing to obey orders, being in an unauthorized
area, abusing morphine, refusing to take an alcohol test, and refusing a work
assignment. The worksheet also confirms that Madden had completed or at least started
15 educational courses but had not participated in drug treatment. And, the worksheet
notes, Madden did not have a current work assignment because he was being housed in
segregation.
The district court declined to reduce Madden’s sentence. The court
acknowledged that Madden was eligible for a reduction but concluded, based primarily
on his extensive prison disciplinary record, that Madden is an inmate still in “need of
corrective treatment and from whom the public needs protection.”
Madden, now pro se, argues on appeal that the discretion given to district judges
in considering grounds for a sentence reduction is unconstitutional and counter to the
purpose of retroactive amendments to the guidelines. Yet the Supreme Court has held
that the discretion given to district judges under § 3582(c)(2) is proper, and that neither
the statute nor the Constitution requires a judge to conduct a full resentencing in
response to a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010); United
States v. Neal, 611 F.3d 299, 401 (7th Cir. 2010).
The district court acted well within its authority in declining to reduce Madden’s
prison term. In deciding whether a reduction is appropriate, a district court considers
the applicable § 3553(a) factors (though the court need not analyze each one), as well as
the defendant’s post‐sentencing conduct and any threat to the public posed by early
release. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1190

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 15‐3344 Page 3
(7th Cir. 2012). These considerations persuaded the district court, and us, that a
sentencing reduction was unwarranted given Madden’s “numerous and serious
violations of prison rules.”
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --