Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.david M. Belanger, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 107 F.3d 13 (7th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 107 F.3d 13 (7th Cir. 1997) Submitted Jan. 13, 1997. *Decided Jan. 31, 1997

Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH and KANNE, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

David Belanger was convicted in 1990 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. Based upon his prior convictions, he was found to be a career offender, assigned to offense level 24, and sentenced to concurrent terms of 120 months and 60 months imprisonment. Subsequently, he moved the district court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2), to resentence him in accordance with the amended Application Note 2 of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The amendment (Amendment 506) directs courts to discount the enhanced levels of punishment associated with career offender status when calculating the "offense statutory maximum" to establish the defendant's base offense level. The amendment applies retroactively. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a) and (c). The district court held that the amended application note was invalid and denied the motion. Belanger appeals.

In United States v. Hernandez, 79 F.3d 584, 595 (7th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-8469), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 17, 1996) (No. 95-9335), this court held that the amended Application Note 2 is invalid because its effect of shortening drug offenders' prison terms conflicts with Congress's intent that repeat offenders serve sentences close to the maximum terms authorized for their offenses.1  The amendment therefore has no application in this circuit. Id. at 601. Belanger's case presents no issues different than those decided by Hernandez, and thus the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 *

This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary; accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir.R. 34(f)

 1

Cf. United States v. Labonte, 70 F.3d 1396 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 2545 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (No. 95-1726)

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.