USA v. Donte Moore, No. 22-1995 (7th Cir. 2023)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 4, 2023* Decided May 5, 2023 Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge No. 22 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 19 cr 160 jdp DONTE MOORE, Defendant Appellant. James D. Peterson, Chief Judge. O R D E R Donte Moore, a federal prisoner, challenges the denial of his motion to credit time spent in state custody to his federal sentence. Because the court had no basis to modify his sentence, we affirm. * The appellee is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). No. 22 1995 Page 2 In 2020, Moore was convicted of possessing cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and sentenced to 11 years in prison. At the time of sentencing, Moore had spent a year in state custody on state charges. The district court structured Moore’s federal sentence to begin on the date of federal sentencing and run concurrently with the remainder of his state sentence. About a year and a half later, Moore moved the district court to reduce his federal sentence by one year to account for the time that he had spent in state custody before federal sentencing. Moore provided no basis for the court to modify his sentence; he cited a statute and guidelines provision that inform the court’s decision between imposing concurrent or consecutive prison terms at sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. The court denied the motion, explaining that it had authority to modify his sentence “only in limited circumstances,” and none applied to Moore’s case. On appeal, Moore argues that the court had power to “reassess” his sentence and give him credit for the time he spent in state custody. But “[o]nce a district judge has sentenced a defendant, the judge may ‘modify a term of imprisonment’ only to the extent allowed by retroactive legislation, retroactive changes in the Sentencing Guidelines, a motion for compassionate release, or motion under Criminal Rule 35 or 36.” United States v. Hible, 13 F.4th 647, 649–50 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B)). None of these bases for modification exists here. 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.
