USA v. Emmett Buffman

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Joel M. Flaum, Circuit Judge and Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. [6625364-1] [6625364] [14-2847]

2
1

Case: 14-2847 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Document: 13
Filed: 12/04/2014

Pages: 2

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  December  2,  2014∗  
   Decided  December  4,  2014  

Before  

DIANE  P.  WOOD,  Chief  Judge  

JOEL  M.  FLAUM,  Circuit  Judge  

FRANK  H.  EASTERBROOK,  Circuit  Judge  

Appeal  from  the  United  
States  District  Court  for  the  
Northern  District  of  Illinois,  
Eastern  Division.  

No.  07  CR  143  
Joan  Humphrey  Lefkow,  
Judge.  

No.  14-­‐‑2847  
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  

Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,  

v.    

EMMETT  BUFFMAN,  

Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.    

Order  

Emmett Buffman filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), asking the district
court to reduce his sentence as a result of a retroactive change to the Sentencing
Guidelines. The judge denied that request, observing that Buffman has been sentenced
to the statutory minimum, which is unaffected by the revised Guidelines.

∗  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).  

Case: 14-2847
No.  14-­‐‑2847  

Document: 13

Filed: 12/04/2014

Pages: 2
Page  2  

Buffman’s appeal does not contest that understanding. Instead he says that the
district judge lacked jurisdiction to act at all, because the revised Guideline did not take
effect until November 1, 2014, while the judge denied his motion in August 2014. But
the Guideline is not what provides judicial authority to act (that is, jurisdiction); that
depends on §3582(c)(2). The language of the retroactive Guideline prevents a district
judge from granting a motion until November 1 but does not foreclose a motion’s earlier
denial. And it is hard to see what Buffman could gain from a remand, which would just
produce a new denial for the reason already given by the district judge.
AFFIRMED