United States of America v. Adalberto Santiago

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 22, 2018*
Decided June 22, 2018
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 17‐2030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
ADALBERTO SANTIAGO,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 04 CR 784‐1
Samuel Der‐Yeghiayan,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury convicted Adalberto Santiago of conspiring to possess crack cocaine with
the intent of distributing it, and of distributing it. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). In 2010,
the district judge sentenced Santiago to the statutory minimum of 240 months’
imprisonment. We affirmed that judgment.
* We have agreed to decide this 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. See FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 17‐2030 Page 2
Four years later, Santiago moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). He relied on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered
the base offense level for nearly all drug crimes, including crack‐cocaine convictions.
The district judge denied Santiago’s request because his sentence was set by a statutory
minimum that was higher than his guidelines range, so Amendment 782 was irrelevant.
On appeal from that denial, Santiago generally contends that the amendment
changed the guidelines range so the statutory minimum no longer applies. But he
misunderstands § 3582(c)(2), which authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence
based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
See Koons v. United States, 2018 WL 2465190, at *3 (U.S. June 4, 2018); Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 825–26 (2010). Because Santiago’s sentence was set by a statutory
minimum, it was not “based on” a guidelines range that subsequently changed. And
because the Commission did not change the statutory minimum, Santiago’s sentence
cannot be reduced under § 3582(c)(2).
Santiago has two other contentions on appeal—that the chemist reports
introduced at his trial were fabricated, and that the government did not give him
proper notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 of its intent to seek an enhanced penalty based on a
prior felony conviction. But these aspects of his sentence are unaffected by Amendment
782, and thus are outside the scope of this § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S.
at 828, 830; White v. United States, 745 F.3d 834, 836 (7th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --