NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱSeptemberȱ24,ȱ2009 DecidedȱOctoberȱ26,ȱ2009* Before RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge ȱȱȱ DIANEȱP.ȱWOOD,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ2339 AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱ UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois, PlaintiffȬAppellee, WesternȱDivision.

v. No.ȱ93ȱCRȱ20024Ȭ4 GREGȱFORT, PhilipȱG.ȱReinhard, DefendantȬAppellant. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR TheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱGregȱFort’sȱmotionȱunderȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3582(c)(2)ȱtoȱmodify hisȱsentenceȱofȱlifeȱimprisonmentȱforȱcrackȬcocaineȱoffensesȱonȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱheȱwas ineligibleȱforȱaȱreduction.ȱȱFortȱappeals.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱheldȱthatȱdistrictȱcourtsȱdoȱnotȱhave authorityȱtoȱreduceȱaȱdefendant’sȱsentenceȱbelowȱtheȱbottomȱofȱtheȱrangeȱprovidedȱbyȱthe retroactiveȱamendmentsȱtoȱtheȱsentencingȱguidelines.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱCunningham,ȱ554ȱF.3d 703,ȱ709ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱHere,ȱevenȱunderȱtheȱamendedȱcrackȬcocaineȱsentencingȱguideline, Fort’sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱremainsȱ43,ȱseeȱU.S.S.G.ȱch.ȱ5,ȱpt.ȱA,ȱcmt.ȱn.2,ȱandȱtheȱapplicable guidelinesȱrangeȱremainsȱlifeȱimprisonment.ȱȱThus,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrict court.

* ȱThisȱsuccessiveȱappealȱhasȱbeenȱsubmittedȱtoȱaȱquorumȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱpanelȱunder OperatingȱProcedureȱ6(b),ȱJudgeȱWalterȱJ.ȱCummingsȱhavingȱpassedȱawayȱsinceȱtheȱtimeȱof ourȱoriginalȱdecision.ȱȱSeeȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ46(d).ȱȱAfterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱwe haveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱisȱunnecessary.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ34(a);ȱCIR.ȱR.ȱ34(f).