USA v. Solomon Montague, No. 08-4263 (7th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 May 28, 2009 Decided June 16, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Chief Judge KENNETH F. RIPPLE , Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 08-4263 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97 CR 50026-2 Philip G. Reinhard, Judge. SOLOMON MONTAGUE , Defendant-Appellant. Order Solomon Montague is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for crack-cocaine offenses. We affirmed his conviction and sentence in United States v. Cavender, 228 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000). After the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline range for crack cocaine (see Amendment 706) and made that change retroactive (see Amendments 711 and 715), Montague asked the district court to reduce his sentence. He appeals from the order denying that motion. 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). No. 08-4263 Page 2 Montague s sentence of life imprisonment is the statutory minimum for someone with his criminal history who distributes more than 50 grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. ยง841(b)(1)(A)(iii), as the district court found that he did. A change to the Guideline range does not authorize a sentence below a statutory floor. United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2009). This makes it unnecessary to address Montague s argument that the Constitution required the Sentencing Commission to draft Amendment 506 more favorably to defendants. No change that the Commission could have made would have offered Montague any benefit. (A mandatory minimum sentence, based on judicial findings, is compatible with the Constitution, see Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and at all events Montague s time to contest that sentence on constitutional grounds expired long ago.) AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
