
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte T. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-1391.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 22, 2009.
    
    Decided Sept. 29, 2009.
    Daniel L. Bella, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kerry C. Connor, Federal Community Defenders Incorporated, Hammond, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge and MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    
   Order

After the Sentencing Commission lowered the guideline ranges for crack cocaine, Donte Roberts filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), asking the judge to reduce his sentence. The judge found Roberts eligible but declined to reduce the sentence. The judge observed that Roberts has been formally disciplined more than 20 times for violations of prison rules, that some of his prison misconduct is serious, and that the frequency of violations has not decreased with time. The judge deemed Roberts a poor candidate for accelerated release.

Roberts filed a notice of appeal. His lawyer has submitted an Anders brief explaining why the appeal is frivolous. Roberts was invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, and has not done so. There are only three potential appellate arguments: that reduction is mandatory; that the judge misunderstood Roberts’s intra-prison record; or that failure to reduce the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The statute shows that the district judge is not required to reduce a sentence just because the range has gone down, so the first argument would be frivolous. Roberts has never argued that the judge misunderstood the number or gravity of his intra-prison transgressions, ruling out the second line of argument. And given his extensive intra-prison record, it would be impossible to say that refusing to expedite his release from prison is an abuse of discretion.

Roberts argued in the district court that the judge could use § 3582(c) to apply United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), retroactively. The judge properly rejected that contention. See United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2009).

We agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.  