Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 10, 2015∗ Decided November 18, 2015… v. Jamonte L. Allison

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 10, 2015∗
Decided November 18, 2015
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15-­‐‑2412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
JAMONTE L. ALLISON,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.
No. 04-­‐‑CR-­‐‑40021-­‐‑MJR-­‐‑2
Michael J. Reagan, Chief Judge.
Order
In response to the most recent retroactive change to the drug-­‐‑quantity tables in the
Sentencing Guidelines (see Amendment 782), Jamonte Allison asked the district court to
reduce his sentence. The court declined, observing that Allison’s sentence already is at
∗ 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-­‐‑2412 Page 2
the statutory minimum of 240 months, so that 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
sentence reduction.
Allison maintains that the drug-­‐‑quantity calculations and record of convictions that
led to the 240-­‐‑month sentence—calculations based on Allison’s concessions as part of a
plea agreement—are erroneous and should be revised. At the time of sentencing, for
someone with Allison’s record of convictions, distributing even 50 grams of crack co-­‐‑
caine set the minimum at 240 months, and he conceded distributing at least 500 grams.
Nonetheless, he now asks the district judge to ignore the terms of the plea agreement
and find that he distributed a lesser quantity, relieving him of the 240-­‐‑month statutory
minimum.
He made an identical argument when seeking a reduction under an earlier retroac-­‐‑
tive change. (Indeed, this is the fourth time he has made the functionally identical ar-­‐‑
gument.) We held in 2013 that §3582(c)(2) does not allow a district judge to revisit the
factual findings made in the original sentencing. See United States v. Allison, No. 12-­‐‑1709
(7th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013) (nonprecedential disposition). Instead the judge takes them as
given and applies the new Guidelines to them. See, e.g., Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817 (2010); United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013). What we held in 2013 re-­‐‑
mains the law, so the district court’s decision must be
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --