USA v. Terrell Agee, No. 10-2020 (7th Cir. 2010)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 September 15, 2010* Decided November 8, 2010 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 10-2020 v. TERRELL AGEE, Defendant-Appellant. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:99-cr-00397-7 Wayne R. Andersen, Judge. O R D E R There is only one question we need to resolve in this appeal. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Terrell Agee s second motion to reduce sentence? The answer is an unqualified No . *This appeal is successive to Appeal 04 2045 and has been submitted to this panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal, therefore, is submitted on the briefs and record. No. 10 2020 Page 2 Agee s second motion, just like his first, sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the Sentencing Commission s amended Sentencing Guideline for crack cocaine. In its order denying Agee s first motion, the district court pointed out that Agee was re sentenced [on June 5, 2008] using the amended statute and therefore is not entitled to a reduction in sentence . See Order of July 29, 2009. We dismissed Agee s appeal of this order because it was untimely. See Appeal No. 09 3203. The district court thought Agee s second motion, filed within weeks of this court s dismissal of Appeal No. 09 3203 as untimely, was a belated attempt to seek review of both his sentence and the denial of his first motion to reduce sentence. Further, the court again pointed out that the revised guidelines [on cocaine base] were already taken into account when determining Agee s current sentence . See Order of April 12, 2010. Agee s brief presents no argument to suggest that either explanation for the denial of his second motion to reduce sentence (the only order under review), let alone both explanations, constituted an abuse of discretion. His conclusory claim that one of the two reasons for denying his motion is untrue is insufficient. As such, we can hardly say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Agee s second motion to reduce sentence. See United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872, 875 76 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009). The order of the district court is 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.
