United States of America v. Patrick B. Wallace

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 16, 2023*
Decided October 17, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1726
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK B. WALLACE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 12-cr-30003-001
Sara Darrow,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Patrick Wallace, a federal prisoner, moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive application of Amendment 782 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied his motion, ruling that Amendment
782 did not lower his guidelines range. Because the district court correctly ruled that
Wallace was ineligible for a sentence reduction, we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-1726 Page 2
A jury found Wallace guilty of possessing with intent to distribute 280 or more
grams of crack cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2010). The district court assessed
Wallace’s guidelines sentence at 240 months—the statutory minimum—based on an
enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 for a prior felony drug conviction. (Under U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.1(b), the statutory minimum becomes the guidelines sentence if it exceeds the
otherwise applicable guidelines range, which here was 188 to 235 months.) The court
sentenced him to an above-guidelines term of 288 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed
the judgment. United States v. Wallace, 753 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2014).
About ten years after sentencing, Wallace moved to reduce his sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argued that Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which retroactively lowered the base offense level for drug offenses, qualified him for a
shorter sentence. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 782 (2014); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
The district court denied the motion, explaining that he was not eligible for a sentence
reduction because his guidelines sentence was based on the statutory minimum,
see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b), and thus was not lowered by Amendment 782.
Wallace challenges that ruling on appeal, but the district court was correct. A
district court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) only if the defendant was
sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
1783, 1788 (2018). But Wallace was sentenced based on the statutory minimum, which
has not been lowered by the Commission. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (defendant
ineligible for sentence reduction if guidelines sentence based on statutory minimum).
Wallace alternatively argues that another amendment to the guidelines—
Amendment 780—instructs district courts to determine eligibility for a sentence
reduction “without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1,” the provision that set the
statutory minimum as his guidelines sentence. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C,
Amend. 780 (2014); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). But Amendment 780 does not apply to Wallace.
It applies only if the court “had the authority to impose a sentence below the statutorily
required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s
substantial assistance.” U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 780 (2014). Wallace did not
provide substantial assistance, and so the court here did not have that authority.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --