USA v. Justin Turner
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge and Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. [6865886-1]  [17-1398]
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 August 30, 2017*
Decided August 31, 2017
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 08 CR 996‐2
John W. Darrah,
O R D E R
Justin Turner was convicted in 2013 of conspiring to possess and distribute
cocaine and heroin. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). As part of a plea agreement under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Turner cooperated with the
government. He also admitted purchasing at least 1,500 kilograms of cocaine and
*We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous.
See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
20 kilograms of heroin. The parties agreed that Turner’s cooperation warranted a prison
sentence of 160 months, substantially below the range of 324 to 405 months that
otherwise would have applied under the sentencing guidelines. The district court
accepted the plea agreement and imposed the agreed prison term.
Then in 2014 the Sentencing Commission promulgated, and made retroactive,
Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense level for most drug offenses.
See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 782 (2014). Turner responded by moving under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his prison sentence. The district court denied that
motion with the explanation that Turner wasn’t eligible for a reduction because his
sentence had been imposed pursuant to a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), not
the guidelines range. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 538–39 (2011)
(Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Dixon, 687 F.3d 356, 358–59 (7th Cir. 2012).
Turner never appealed that decision. That should have been the end of it, but
instead, more than a year after the district court had denied his motion, Turner filed
three additional § 3582(c)(2) motions asking the district court to reduce his sentence.
The court denied all three requests, reasoning that Turner wasn’t entitled to ask a
second time for a reduction based on Amendment 782. Turner appeals from that
decision. But the district court was right; a defendant is limited to a single § 3582(c)(2)
motion for any given change in the guidelines range. United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288,
292 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011). Turner used
his one shot in 2015. He contends now that his 2015 motion was wrongly denied, but
that contention could, and should, have been made in an appeal from the court’s
decision on that motion.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?