United States of America v. Timothy Andrew Endre

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 7, 2025 *
Decided January 10, 2025
Before
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY ANDREW ENDRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:14-cr-00108-SEB-MJD-01
Sarah Evans Barker,
Judge.
O R D E R
Timothy Endre, who was convicted of enticing a minor through internet
communications, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582
for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The
district court denied his motion because Endre is ineligible for a reduction under the
amendment. 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. FED . R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-1976 Page 2
Endre pleaded guilty in 2015 to enticing or coercing a minor through internet
communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). His total offense level was 31 and his criminal
history score was 16 (category VI), yielding a recommended guidelines range of 188–235
months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced Endre to 212 months’ imprisonment and 10
years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $2,500 in restitution.
Last year, the enactment of Amendment 821 lowered the number of criminal
history “status” points assigned to certain defendants for offenses committed while
under another sentence. Endre, who had two status points added to his criminal history
score, moved a year later for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The district court denied the motion. Endre was not eligible for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 821, the court explained, because the one-point decrease
in status points left unchanged his criminal history category and resulting guidelines
range. The court also refused to consider Endre’s contention that his criminal history
score was improperly calculated, as that consideration was outside the scope of a § 3582
motion.
On appeal, Endre asserts that a § 3582 motion obliges a district court to
undertake a plenary review of a defendant’s sentence, including the calculation of
criminal history points. Such a review, Endre argues, would have uncovered errors in
the criminal history computation to lower his guidelines range and render him eligible
for a sentence reduction. But this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s
decision in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). There, the Court held that
§ 3582(c)(2) “does not authorize a resentencing” to correct any mistakes in the original
sentence. Id. at 831; see also United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023).
And the changes brought about by Amendment 821 do not make Endre eligible for a
sentence reduction because they would not reduce his guidelines range. See Dillon,
560 U.S. at 827.
Endre also contends that the district court prematurely decided his motion
before he could submit his reply to the government’s response. But no such
requirement appears in 18 U.S.C. § 3582, and we have never suggested that full briefing
is required. We leave to the district court’s discretion the process for resolving motions
under § 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009), and here
the court reasonably determined that Endre’s ineligibility for a reduced sentence was
foreordained. In any event, Endre has not explained how this decision prejudiced him.
See United States v. Gan, 54 F.4th 467, 475 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --