USA v. Johnnie Mosley, No. 12-1106 (7th Cir. 2012)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 2, 2012* Decided May 2, 2012 Before KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 12-1106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNNIE E. MOSLEY Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 06-CR-30111-01-WDS William D. Stiehl, Judge. ORDER Johnnie Mosley appeals from the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because the amendment does not apply to Mosley, we affirm the judgment. * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 12-1106 Page 2 Mosley pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to 262 months imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission later retroactively amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to lower the base offense levels for certain crack offenses, see U.S.S.G. app. C at 253 (2011) (Amend. 713), and Mosley moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Mosley s status as a career offender made him ineligible for a sentence reduction. On appeal Mosley argues broadly that the Sentencing Commission should have extended the reach of its amendment to include those sentenced under the career-offender guideline. He also argues that the district court should have considered his post-sentencing rehabilitation before denying his motion. But whatever the merits of Mosley s arguments as a policy matter, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence because it had sentenced him based on his status as a career offender and not § 2D1.1. See United States v. Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399 400 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589 90 (7th Cir. 2009). 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.
