Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Lynch, Selya, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
LYNCH,
Circuit
Judge.
Anthony
Vaughn
appeals
the
reduction, we affirm.
I.
This
independent
sentencing
federal
appeal
crimes,
is
committed
about
at
two
separate
separate
times
and
and
The district
months of imprisonment.
As to the second crime, on November 27, 2012, while
Vaughn was serving his 2002 sentence, he pleaded guilty to a
separate charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1).
The charge related to Vaughn's attempts to have heroin smuggled
into the federal prison where he was imprisoned. On June 13, 2013,
Vaughn
was
sentenced
as
career
offender
to
120
months
of
- 2 -
sentencing
hearing
that
the
Bureau
of
Prisons
(BOP)
would
completed
the
part
of
his
prison
time
Vaughn did
- 3 -
However, he argued
discretion.
2008).
18 U.S.C. 3582(c).
One
exception is that:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on
a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . the
court may reduce the term of imprisonment,
after considering the factors set forth in
1
- 4 -
Id. at
of
an
enumerated
list
of
guideline
amendments
applies.
Amendment 788
- 5 -
U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(e)(1).
B.
We believe from
sentence.
Because
the
applicable
policy
statement
for his second crime that is not eligible for a reduction under
Amendment 782.
Vaughn argues that he is nonetheless eligible for a
sentence reduction because he is serving an aggregate sentence of
it
3584(c)
specifies
that
does
not
support
aggregation
is
Vaughn's
"for
position
administrative
has
the
responsibility
(emphasis added)).
for
administering
the
sentence."
579, 582 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Kaman, No. 3:09-CR-141,
- 7 -
same
time
by
the
same
judge.
Even
supposing
that
sentences
were
imposed
separately.
Simultaneously
- 8 -
sentences); cf. Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 386 (1989) ("There
is no indication that the order of the sentences was of the
slightest importance to the sentencing judge, and there is no
reason
constitutional
fortuities.").
adjudication
should
turn
on
such
reduction
for
the
first
of
two
separately
imposed
See United
States v. Parker, 472 F. App'x 415, 417 (7th Cir. 2012); United
States v. Gamble, 572 F.3d 472, 47375 (8th Cir. 2009).
Vaughn also makes an unpersuasive textual argument.
Relying on the district court's reasoning in Bolin, Vaughn begins
with the premise that a defendant is eligible for a sentence
reduction when he "is serving a term of imprisonment, and the
guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been
lowered."
Bolin,
1B1.10(a)(1)).
2008
WL
928397,
at
*2
(quoting
U.S.S.G.
Id.
The fact that 1B1.10 uses a singular "a" says nothing about
- 9 -
In
state
conviction
underlying
the
first
of
two
consecutive
the
consecutive
Id. at 41.
sentences
"compos[ed]
continuous
The Court in
Id. at 4445.
- 10 -
- 11 -