USA v. Robert Sleepers, No. 08-2179 (7th Cir. 2008)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 October 2, 2008* Decided October 9, 2008 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge ANN C LAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 08-2179 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 3:03 CR 084 AS Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge. ROBERT L. SLEEPERS, Defendant-Appellant. Order Sleepers pleaded guilty in 2004 to a cocaine-distribution conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. §846. He admitted in a written plea agreement to distributing approximately 100 kilograms of cocaine. This, plus Sleepers s prior convictions (covered by an information under 21 U.S.C. §851), set the statutory minimum penalty at 240 months imprisonment, which was the sentence the district court imposed. After the Sentencing Commission lowered the offense level for crack cocaine and made the change retroactive, see U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(c); Amendment 706, Sleepers asked the district court to reduce his sentence. The judge declined, and Sleepers has appealed. All that need be said to resolve this appeal is that Sleepers s sentence is already the lowest permitted by law. It therefore makes no difference how much of the 100 kilograms was crack and how much was cocaine hydrochloride, or what changes the Commission has made to the Guidelines. Nothing the Commission has done could authorize (or purports to authorize) a district judge to disregard a statutory minimum penalty. See Neal v. United States, 516 U.S. 284 (1996). (Sleepers believes that his 240month sentence is unlawful because the §251 information was untimely, but he has al* 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. 08-2179 Page 2 ready filed and lost a collateral attack. The requirements of a successive collateral attack have not been satisfied, so application of the statutory minimum is no longer open to question. See Godoski v. United States, 304 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2002).) 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.
