United States of America v. Michael Bravo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 20, 2024 *
Decided September 24, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1874
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BRAVO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:16-cr-00463
Virginia M. Kendall,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Michael Bravo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court denied the motion because Bravo’s
current sentence is shorter than the bottom of the guidelines range under the
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 24-1874 Page 2
amendment to the Guidelines that he invokes, disqualifying him for a reduction.
Because Bravo is not eligible for a reduction under § 3582, we affirm.
In 2018, Bravo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering activity,
18 U.S.C. § 1962, in connection with a violent street gang. With a criminal history
category of IV and an offense level of 30, the Sentencing Guidelines advised a range of
135 to 168 months in prison. In analyzing the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the sentencing judge decided to vary 60 months below the top of that range—
48 for the time that Bravo had served for his predicate firearms offense and 12 for
rehabilitation. This deduction led the judge to impose a prison term of 108 months.
Bravo’s initial appeal led to a resentencing. He successfully argued that the
district court improperly assigned criminal history points to two convictions that were
“similar” to disorderly conduct, and without those points, his criminal history category
dropped to III, producing a guidelines range of 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2; United States v. Bravo, 26 F.4th 387 (7th Cir. 2022). We concluded that,
because the sentence was “anchored in” the guidelines range, the court could have
arrived at a lower sentence had it been aware of the correct guidelines range. Bravo,
26 F.4th at 397. On remand, and considering new mitigating evidence, the district court
varied slightly downward from its previous sentence, imposing a 100-month term.
Last year, the Sentencing Commission retroactively amended U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1,
removing two criminal history points for defendants who offended while under a
criminal justice sentence (so-called “status points”). Invoking this amendment, Bravo
moved for a sentence reduction. He argued that his criminal history score should drop
from III to II, yielding a new guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. The district court
denied the motion. It followed the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement, which
states that “the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment … to a
term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range … .” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2). Bravo’s sentence was already 100 months, 8 months below the bottom of
his new range.
On appeal, Bravo argues that he qualifies for a sentence reduction. In his view,
his sentence falls below the bottom of the amended guidelines range only because the
district court credited him for time served on a predicate sentence. Without that credit,
which he insists the district court must ignore when deciding his motion, his sentence
would be 148 months, above his new minimum of 108 months. Therefore, he concludes,
he qualifies for a reduction.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1874 Page 3
Bravo’s conclusion is incorrect. In proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) for sentence
reductions based on retroactive changes to the Guidelines, the Supreme Court
“requir[es] courts to honor § 1B1.10(b)(2)’s instruction not to depart from the amended
Guidelines range.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 830 (2010). The instruction
contains only one exception—if the original sentence fell below the amended guidelines
range because of credit given for substantial assistance to the government. Id. at 822;
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2). The policy statement contains no other exceptions, and Bravo
does not argue that the substantial-assistance exception applies to him. Because Bravo’s
sentence is lower than the minimum recommended sentence under the amended
Guidelines, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. The district court thus properly
denied his motion.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --