United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 5, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
ALEXANDER SANTIAGO, Defendant.
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Alexander Santiago ("Santiago"), whom this Court sentenced as a career offender nearly three years ago,  has sought to invoke 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) as a predicate for reducing his sentence based on a Sentencing Guidelines amendment that has generally lowered the base offense levels applicable to narcotics offenses. Unfortunately for Santiago, he is mistaken in assuming that the Sentencing Commission's determination that Guidelines Amendment 782 should be retroactively applicable to previously sentenced defendants has rendered such relief automatic - instead the retroactivity provision operates only if the amendment lowers a specific defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range.
In that respect Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added) specifically provides:
A reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if... an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.
In this instance, just as in such cases as United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589-90 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2011) and United States v. Williams, 694 F.3d 917, 918 (7th Cir. 2012), as well as in other cases cited in each of those opinions, the fact that Santiago was sentenced under the career offender guideline means that Amendment 782 does not result in a different sentencing range for him, so that no reduction of his sentence is permissible. Accordingly Santiago is not entitled to relief, and his motion is denied.