United States of America v. Christopher Crittendon

24-1830Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitOct 31, 2024

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 30, 2024*
Decided October 31, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CRITTENDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 17-CR-121
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Christopher Crittendon moved to reduce his prison sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based on a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district
court denied the motion, reasoning that Crittendon’s below-guidelines sentence barred
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 24-1830 Page 2
a sentence reduction and that, in any event, consideration of the sentencing factors in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) cautioned against lowering his sentence. We affirm.
In 2022, a jury convicted Crittendon of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a),
and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The
Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report. The report assigned
Crittendon a total offense level of 22 (a base offense level of 20 for the robbery, U.S.S.G.
§ 2B3.1(a), plus two levels because he committed the offense against a financial
institution, id. § 2B3.1(b)(1)), a criminal history category of IV (six points for prior
offenses and two more because he committed this robbery while on probation, id.
§ 4A1.1(d)), and a sentencing guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. The firearm offense
carried a statutory minimum sentence of 84 months. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The
district court sentenced Crittendon to a below-guidelines sentence of 40 months for the
robbery conviction and 84 months for the firearm conviction, to be served
consecutively.
A year and a half later, Crittendon moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce
his sentence for the robbery conviction based on a new amendment to the Guidelines.
He observed that Amendment 821 (the relevant portion of which applies retroactively,
see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d)), removed two criminal history points from the criminal history
score for defendants who committed their offense while serving another sentence.
Compare U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (2018), with id. § 4A1.1(e) (2023). This amendment lowered
Crittendon’s criminal history score from eight to six, his category from IV to III, and his
sentencing range from 63 to 78 months to 51 to 63 months.
The district court denied the motion. The court explained that Crittendon was
ineligible for a sentence reduction because his 40-month sentence already fell below the
amended range and could not be lowered. Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). And even if his
sentence could be lowered, the court pointed out that the § 3553(a) factors—
particularly, the seriousness of Crittendon’s violent crime and later flight from the
police—did not support a reduction.
On appeal, Crittendon generally challenges the district court’s denial of his
motion. But as the district court observed, a prison sentence under § 3582(c)(2) may not
be reduced to a length shorter than the minimum of the revised guidelines range.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010).
Because Crittendon’s 40-month sentence is shorter than the 51-month minimum
calculated under the revised sentencing range, we agree with the district court that he is
ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1830 Page 3
Because Crittendon is ineligible for the reduction he seeks, we need not address
his argument that the court erred in its weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.