United States of America v. Clifton Robinson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued July 8, 2026
Decided July 17, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLIFTON ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 1:22-CR-00181-WCG-1
William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
O R D E R
Clifton Robinson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821
to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not abuse its discretion because
it based the denial on its assessment of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We therefore affirm.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1190 Page 2
Background
Robinson pleaded guilty in 2023 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his presentence investigation report, the probation
officer calculated a guidelines range of 84 to 105 months based on an offense level of 25
and a criminal history category of IV. This placed him in criminal history category IV
after it was determined that Robinson had eight criminal history points. That point total
included two points under the then-effective version of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because
Robinson had committed the offense while under a criminal sentence in a prior state
case. The district court later sentenced Robinson to 78 months’ imprisonment and 3
years’ supervised release based on the sentencing factors found under § 3553(a).
In 2024, Robinson moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on
Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. That retroactive amendment
decreased the number of status points for defendants like Robinson who committed the
instant offense while serving a different sentence. U.S. S ENT’ G GUIDELINES M ANUAL,
amend. 821 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023). Under Amendment 821, Robinson’s criminal
history score was reduced from 8 points to 6 points (for a criminal history category of
III), resulting in a lower Guidelines Range of 70 to 87 months. See id.
The district court denied Robinson’s request to reduce his sentence. The court
acknowledged Robinson’s entitlement to a two-point reduction in his criminal history
score. But it denied relief under § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was based on the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, not his original guidelines range. The court reasoned that
its sentence was appropriate due to Robinson’s criminal history (two prior convictions
for armed robbery); the nature and circumstances of his offense (charges for drug
distribution while possessing multiple firearms and large-capacity magazines); and the
need to provide just punishment, reasonable deterrence, and protection for the public.
Robinson then moved for reconsideration, asking the court to recalculate his
criminal history score because doing so could affect how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
calculated his recidivism risk and therefore his security classification in prison.1 The
district court also denied that motion, concluding that it lacked the authority to reduce
Robinson’s criminal history points or to amend the PSR.
1 According to Robinson’s counsel, the BOP has since granted his request to
reduce his criminal history points in light of Amendment 821 and relocated him to a
lower security facility.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1190 Page 3
Analysis
Under § 3582(c), courts “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has
been imposed” except in limited circumstances. One exception is “in the case of a
defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). When considering sentence reductions under
§ 3582(c)(2), courts proceed in two steps. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
First, the court follows the Commission’s instructions in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to determine
whether a prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction. Id. at 827. If eligible, the court
“consider[s] any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine[s] whether, in its discretion,
the reduction … is warranted.” Id.
Both parties agree Amendment 821 applies to Robinson, and that he is eligible
for reduction. So, the question is whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying Robinson a sentence reduction. We conclude that it did not. The original 78-
month sentence was below the Guidelines range. And after Robinson filed his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court relied on the original sentencing factors in
declining to reduce Robinson’s sentence. The district court followed Dillon and
explained its consideration of this case under the § 3553(a) factors in a written Order.
The two cases Robinson relies upon, Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018),
and United States v. McGhee, No. 24-1065, 2024 WL 2105466 (7th Cir. May 10, 2024), are
distinguishable. In Hughes, the Court held that the prisoner was eligible for § 3582(c)(2)
relief because the district court accepted the plea agreement “after concluding that a
180–month sentence was consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines.” 584 U.S. at 690–91.
But the Court also “expresse[d] no view as to whether the District Court should exercise
its discretion to reduce [the] sentence after considering the § 3553(a) factors and the
[Sentencing] Commission’s relevant policy statements.” Id. at 691. Likewise, this court
determined in McGhee that the district court erred by “concluding that McGhee’s
sentence was not based on his guidelines range only because of the nature of the plea
agreement he entered into with the government.” 2024 WL 2105466 at *2 (citation
modified). Both cases considered only eligibility under the first step of Dillon. Id.;
Hughes, 584 U.S. at 591. Neither reached the second step.
At bottom, § 3582(c)(2) does not require a sentence reduction, or any other action
here. If a defendant is eligible for sentence reduction, a court must only “consider any
applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction … is
warranted.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827. By denying the sentence reduction motion, the

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1190 Page 4
district court did precisely that. It looked at the previous sentence and found it
“sufficient but not greater than necessary to provide just punishment, provide
reasonable deterrence and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.”
As Robinson admits, “in deciding a motion under § 3582(c)(2), the district court
is not required to analyze extensively every § 3553(a) factor.” United States v. Clayton,
811 F.3d 918, 921 (7th Cir. 2016). A district court need only “provide[] a straightforward
explanation as to why it would deny [the defendant’s] motion.” United States v. Davis,
682 F.3d 596, 614 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475, 477 (7th
Cir. 2009). Even if, as Robinson frames it, the district court “simply restated its reasons”
for denying reduction, that is enough. “All that ‘is necessary is simply a statement of
reasons that is consistent with § 3553(a) and not one that analyzes the relationship
between each factor.’” United States v. Purnell, 701 F.3d 1186, 1190 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quoting United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2009)). Because the district
court stated its reasons here, it properly exercised its discretion to deny a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Neal, 611 F.3d 399, 401 (7th Cir. 2010).
This court also ordered briefing on a series of other questions, including
whether—after a final judgment has been entered—the court has the authority to order
a recalculation of a defendant’s criminal history score, as well as other related topics.
Ct. App. D.E. 13. We need not reach those questions here, as the procedural posture of
this case means they are not dispositive. A revised PSR would not affect the district
court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction, and it may not provide a basis for
remand. Further, the BOP has granted Robinson’s request to adjust his criminal history
score, and it has moved him to a lower security facility.2
AFFIRMED
2 We thank attorneys Henry Dickman, Thomas Hopson, and the law firm of
Jones Day for their hard work in ably representing Robinson before this court.

-- 4 of 4 --