source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Jonathan JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-3259
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Argued: September 28, 2016
    Decided and Filed: September 30, 2016

      ARGUED: Robert B. Newman, NEWMAN & MEEKS CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Pamela J. Sears, HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert B. Newman, NEWMAN & MEEKS CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, Stephen R. Felson, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Pamela J. Sears, Michael J. Friedman, HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.
    Before: ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

The Hamilton County Sheriff transported Jonathan Jones to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections one day after the sheriff received the judgment entry sentencing Jones. Because Jones fulfilled his sentence with the time he had already served, the Department gave him a certificate of expiration of sentence and sent him on his way. Jones responded to this seemingly unnecessary trip by suing the sheriff for money damages in federal court. Although Ohio generally treats its sheriffs as county policymakers, Ohio law required the Hamilton County Sheriff to transport Jones to the Department. ■ The sheriff, acting as an arm of the State in this respect, thus enjoys sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. We affirm.

Jones was arrested on July 8, 2013, and indicted on July 16, 2013, for felonious assault in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11(A)(2). He entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge on February 3, 2015. At his sentencing hearing that same day, the judge determined that the sentence “to be served is one year, six months' in the Ohio Department of Corrections.” R. 13 at 28, The judge determined that Jones could receive “credit for time served in the amount of' 560 days” but also indicated that Jones “may be supervised for up to three years after [he] leave[s] prison if the parole board determines it is necessary.” Id. at 28-29. The parole board would make that determination “[b]efore [Jones is] released,” and the sheriffs office would need to “process him.” Id. at 29, 31. The judge predicted that Jones “will never be transported” and “guess[ed]” that he would be released either that day, February 3, or early the next day, February 4, “[depending on how long the processing takes.” Id. at 31.

Those “[expectations,” as sometimes happens, turned out to be “a bucket of smoke.” Wendell Berry, Hannah Coulter 139 (2005). The sheriff did not release Jones on February 3. And he did not release him on February 4. Jones’ counsel contacted the sheriff in an attempt to secure his client’s release. But counsel’s efforts proved fruitless in the absence of a sentencing transcript, judgment entry, or any other documentation to prove Jones merited immediate release. The court finally filed the judgment entry on February 5. The sheriffs daily transport of inmates-to the Department’s reception center leaves between 6:30 a.m. and 7 a.m„ well before the judgment entry occurred on February 5. The sheriff thus processed Jones and transported him to the Department on February 6. The Department applied the 560-day credit, gave Jones the official certificate of expiration of sentence, and released him that day.

Jones sued Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neil in his official capacity for damages, alleging that the sheriff (1) had violated Jones’ “rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and (2) had falsely imprisoned him “under the laws of the State of Ohio” by not releasing him immediately after the sentencing hearing concluded on February 3. R. 1 at 2-3. To be clear, Jones did not challenge the sheriffs decision to wait until the morning after receiving the judgment entry before sending him roughly one hundred miles to the Department with the other convicts. -He instead challenged the sheriffs more fundamental decision to transport him to the Department at any time after the sentencing hearing, the purported “policy of sending all sentenced persons to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.” R. 1 at 2-3. Jones moved for partial summary judgment. The sheriff moved to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative for summary judgment. The district' court denied Jones’ motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the claims against the sheriff. Jones appeals.

The first—and insurmountable— hurdle for Jones is the sheriffs claim of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Rf Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “The States’ sovereign immunity ... shields the States from private lawsuits absent their consent or permissible abrogation by Congress. ... Damages actions against state, officers in their official capacities count as lawsuits against the State.” Crabbs v. Scott, 786 F.3d 426, 428-29 (6th Cir. 2015); see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Counties and their officers, it is true, normally do not “share the States’ sovereign immunity.” Crabbs, 786 F.3d at 429; see Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Because counties lack inherent sovereign immunity, so do Ohio county sheriffs, who “generally are treated as county policymakers.” Crabbs, 786 F.3d at 430. “Ohio law classifies county sheriffs as ‘county officials’ and ‘employees,’ ” and “[t]he voters of each county elect their own sheriff.” Id. at 429 (citing Ohio Rev. Code §§ 301.28(A)(3), 311.01(A), 2744.01). But a sheriff may still come within the umbrella of the State’s sovereign immunity “if state law required him to take the actions he took.” Id. at 430; see Brotherton v. Cleveland, 173 F.3d 552, 566 (6th Cir. 1999). We therefore look to Ohio law to determine whether “sheriffs,, when executing their duties” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.12 “represent the State” of Ohio. McMillian v. Monroe Cty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 793, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997).

That is just what happened here. Ohio law required the sheriff to transport Jones to the Department and prohibited him from releasing Jones on February 3 without the Department’s permission. Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.12 mandates that “a convicted felon who is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution shall be conveyed, within five days after sentencing, ... by the sheriff of the county in which the conviction was had to the facility that is designated by the department of rehabilitation and correction for the reception of convicted felons.” The Ohio Supreme Court has “consistently interpreted the word ‘shall’ in a legislative enactment to make mandatory the provision in which it is contained, absent a clear and unequivocal intent that it receive a construction other than its ordinary meaning.” State ex rel. Stewart v. Russo, 145 Ohio St.3d 382, 49 N.E.3d 1272, 1275 (2016) (quotation omitted). With no such qualification of “shall” in § 2949,12, the statute requires sheriffs to transport convicted felons to the Department.

The mandatory transport of convicted felons to the Department has some method to it. As Jones acknowledges, “almost all over-detention cases involve prisoners who believe their release dates have been miscalculated.” Appellant’s Br. 22. Section 2949.12 tries to solve that problem. With “copies of the sentence and indictment” in hand, the Department can ensure that release dates are correctly calculated. Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.12. Nor can sheriffs ignore prisoners’ complaints or drag their heels in investigating those complaints. They must convey each prisoner to the Department “within five days after sentencing, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.” Id. Further, § 2949.12 allows the parole board to apply any post-release sanctions before release from imprisonment, see id. § 2967.28(D)(1), and the Depártment to acquire a DNA specimen “during the intake process,” id. § 2901.07(B)(1)(a).

As the judgment entry specifies, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas found Jones guilty of “felonious assault” and stated that he “is sentenced to be imprisoned” for “one [] year and six [] months in the Department of Corrections.” R. 32-9 at 88. The Hamilton County Sheriff thus had a State-mandated obligation to convey Jones to the Department within five days of judgment entry on February 5. See Ohio Crim. R. 32(C). And the sheriff satisfied that responsibility within one day.

Although the state court said on February 3 that Jones was due a time credit longer than his sentence, § 2949.12 still applied to Jones. It is the judgment, not the judge’s oral statement, that imposes the sentence and binds the inmate. And the judgment became “effective only when entered on the journal -by the clerk.” Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C). Even if the judge had authority under Ohio’ law to apply the credit for time served, the earliest Jones could have used the credit was February 5, when the clerk entered the judgment. On February 3, Jones had not “served his lawful sentence” under Ohio law and was not “entitled to be released” as he claims. R. 1 at 2.

In addition, the Department, not the court, has the authority under Ohio law to apply time credits. Ohio law requires the state court to “[djetermine, notify the offender of, and include in the sentencing entry the number of days that the offender has been confined .... and by which the department of rehabilitation and correction must reduce the stated prison term.’.’ Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i). The judge accordingly determined the length of the time credit, But Ohio law empowers the Department to apply that reduction. Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.191. Before the sheriff transported Jones to the Department on February 6, the Department had not reduced Jones’ sentence, and he was still “sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution.” Id. .§ 2949.12. The sheriff had no discretion to release Jones on February 3 or on February 5 before conveying him to the Department. In transporting Jones to the Department, the sheriff did not follow a discretionary policy but a statutory obligation “he was bound to enforce.” Gottfried v. Med. Planning Servs., Inc., 280 F.3d 684, 693 (6th Cir. 2002). Acting as an arm of the State, the sheriff is entitled to sovereign immunity for the federal claim under 42 U.S.C, § 1983 and the false imprisonment claim under Ohio law.

Section 2949.12, it is true, allows immediate release if “execution of sentence is suspended or the convicted felon has less than thirty days to serve in prison and the department of rehabilitation and correction, the county sheriff, and the court agree.” But “there is no evidence presented that ... there was any agreement between [the Department], the [s]heriff, and the judge as to the release of Jones.” R. 44 at 7. Even if the sheriff wanted to release Jones on February 3, nothing in the statute requires the Department or the judge to agree to immediate release before entry of judgment or before the sheriff has transported the convicted felon and presented the judgment entry for the Department’s inspection.

Last of all, Jones argues that, if we hold the sheriff “to have been acting as an arm of the State of Ohio,” then the sheriff “must also be subject to the same Ohio waiver of immunity that applies to other State entities under Chapter 2743” for the state law claim. Appellant’s Br. 25. Ohio provides statutory immunity for political subdivisions, such as counties. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02. But even assuming that this immunity does not apply when county employees act as an aim of the State, Ohio has not waived sovereign immunity for state law damages claims against the State in federal court. See Johns v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 753 F.2d 524, 527 (6th Cir. 1985). Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(1) states: “The state hereby waives its immunity from liability ... and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this chapter.” Rather than constituting a waiver of sovereign immunity in federal court, § 2743.02(A)(1) confirms that Ohio has not consented to state law damages actions against the State of Ohio, including actions against state officials acting in their official capacity, outside of its own courts. “Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the state law claim[ ]” as well as the § 1983 claim. McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2012).

For these reasons, we affirm.


author: RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

text:
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas James KRUGER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-2581
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Decided and Filed: September 30, 2016

      ON BRIEF: Anna R. Rapa, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. B. Rene Shekmer, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.
    Before: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

Thomas Kruger was sentenced in 2009 to 120 months of imprisonment' for his drug offense, 68 months below the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ recommended range of 188 to 235 months. In 2014, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. This Amendment, had it been in effect when Kruger was sentenced in 2009, would have reduced his sentencing range to 151 to 188 months of imprisonment.

In 2011, however, the Commission,promulgated Amendment 759, which prohibits the retroactive application of Guidelines amendments to those defendants, such as Kruger, whose sentences are for terms of imprisonment ’“less than the minimum of the amended guideline ■ range.” ■ Kruger claims that this- limitation on his right to seek the retroactive application of Amendment 782 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

For the reasons set forth below, we join all of our sister circuits that have considered this issue and conclude that the Ex Post Facto Clause has not been violated in the present case. We accordingly AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Thomas Kruger pleaded guilty in August 2008 to one count of possessing pseu-doephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). The maximum penalty permitted by statute for this offense is 20 years of imprisonment. Id. § 841(c). Kruger was sentenced in January 2009. At that time, the November 2008 edition of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was used to calculate the recommended sentencing range applicable to his case. See U.S.S.G. § lBl.ll(a) (“The court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced.”). Under that edition ■ of the ■ Guidelines, Kruger’s Base Offense Level was 34 and his Criminal History Category was VI. His final recommended sentencing range was 188 to 235 months of imprisonment after subtracting from his Base Offense Level three points for acceptance of responsibility. See id. § 3E1.1.

The district court accepted this Guidelines calculation, but nonetheless varied downward from the Guidelines and imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised-release. Its reason for doing so was based on the court’s conclusion that the proposed Guidelines range overstated the seriousness of Kruger’s offense and the significance of his criminal history.

Five years after Kruger was sentenced, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines so that, effective in November 2014, the Base Offense Levels for possession of certain drug quantities were reduced by two levels. U.S.S.G. App. C Supp., Amend. 782. If Kruger had been sentenced under the amended Guidelines, his recommended sentencing range would have been 151 to 188 months of imprisonment rather than the 188 to 235 months of imprisonment that had' originally applied to him under the 2008 Guidelines.

Certain amendments to the Guidelines apply retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l). When-such an amendment to the Guidelines takes effect, a defendant may move to modify his sentence pursuant to that amendment. As applicable to this case, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 provides in relevant part as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment, once it has been imposed except that .., 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 .., the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A necessary precondition to relief, under § 3582(c)(2) is that the relief requested be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), including the policy statement concerning the modifications of sentences under amended Guidelines ranges, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.

When Kruger was sentenced in 2009, the Guidelines provided that where a defendant, like Kruger, had been sentenced below the range applicable to him at the time he was sentenced, “a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range ... may be appropriate.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) (2008). Effective in November 2011, however, § lB1.10(b) was amended to provide, as relevant here, that “the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term" of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.” U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 759. In choosing to create a categorical prohibition on sentencing reductions for defendants whose original sentences were below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range, the' Commission observed that such a categorical rule would “promote[] conformity with the amended guideline range and avoid[] undue complexity and litigation.” Id.

Kruger filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §' 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 in December 2014. The U.S. Probation Office recommended against modifying his sentence, concluding that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 759 because his original sentence was below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Both the U.S. Attorney General and the district court concurred in this assessment. This timely appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of review

We review de novo a district court’s determination that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277, 280 (6th Cir. 2010). Claims under the Ex Post Facto Clause are similarly reviewed de novo. United States v. Welch, 689 F.3d 529, 532 (6th Cir. 2012).

B. Ex Post Facto Clause

Kruger’s sole claim on appeal is that Amendment 759, which amended § lB1.10(b) to prohibit the retroactive application of sentencing reductions such as Amendment 782 if a defendant’s original sentence is . below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. That Clause provides that “[n]o ... ex post facto Law shall be passed.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 3. The prohibition “forbids, the Congress ... to enact any law ‘which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.’ ” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981) (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 4 Wall. 277, 325-26, 18 L.Ed. 356 (1866)). Kruger’s claim is that Amendment 759 increases the punishment for his crime by rendering him categorically ineligible for a later sentencing reduction under Amendment 782. We are hot persuaded.

“[T]wo critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto: it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Id. at 29, 101 S.Ct. 960; see also Dyer v. Bowlen, 465 F.3d 280, 285 (6th Cir. 2006). The government does not dispute that the first of these elements is met. There is no question that Amendment 759 “applies to prisoners convicted for acts committed before the provision’s effective date.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 31, 101 S.Ct. 960. The nub of the dispute in this case, then, is whether Kruger was “disadvantage[d]” by the Amendment. Id. at 29, 101 S.Ct. 960.

A law “disadvantages” a defendant when it retroactively “increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable.” Cal. Dept. of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 506-07 n.3, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995). “[M]ere speculation or conjecture that a change in law will retrospectively increase the punishment for a crime will not suffice to establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.” Peugh v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 2082, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013). Rather, “[t]he touchstone of th[e] ... inquiry is whether a given change in law presents a ‘sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.’ ” Id. at 2082 (quoting Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 250, 120 S.Ct. 1362, 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000)).

Determining whether a particular law creates a sufficient risk of increased punishment “is a ‘matter of degree’; the test cannot be reduced to a ‘single formula.’” Id. (quoting Morales, 514 U.S. at 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597). The fact that the sentencing court exercises some degree of discretion, for example, does not necessarily foreclose an ex post facto claim. Id. at 2081. On the other hand, if a new, retroactive law has “only the most speculative and attenuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment for covered crimes, [its] ... conjectural effects are insufficient” to trigger the protections of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Morales, 514 U.S. at 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597.

Amendment 759 came into effect in November 2011. It amended U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) to deprive prisoners seeking sentence modifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) of the benefit of amendments to the Guidelines in cases in which the defendant’s original sentence was below the minimum of the new, amended Guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2). Not until 2014 was an amendment passed that had any bearing on Kruger’s sentence: Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level by two levels for the quantity of pseudoephedrine that he was found to have possessed with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

• Amendment 759 does not “increase!] the measure of punishment” imposed on Kruger in 2009. See Morales, 514 U.S. at 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597. Two principal facts lead to this conclusion. First, “the [2008] version of § 1B1.10 didn’t list Amendment 782 (which wouldn’t come into existence for several more years) as a covered amendment, and so it could not have afforded him any relief on the basis of it.” United States v. Hinson, 637 Fed.Appx. 526, 528 (10th Cir. 2016). Second, and more generally, “[b]y nature, a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding to reduce a sentence ... cannot increase a punishment,” United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2014), and consequently cannot violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Morales, 514 U.S. at 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597 (concluding that the Ex Post Facto Clause’s effect is to “prohibit! ] increasing the measure of punishment for covered crimes” after the crime is completed).

This conclusion regarding Amendment 759 has been reached in five of our sister circuits. See United States v. Thompson, 825 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2016); Hinson, 637 Fed.Appx. at 528; Diggs, 768 F.3d at 645; United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam); United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir. 2013). No circuit has ruled to the contrary.

Kruger attempts to neutralize this unanimous weight of authority by quoting Peugh for the proposition that the appropriate test in determining whether a retroactive law “disadvantages” a defendant is “whether a given change in law presents a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.” Peugh, 133 S.Ct. at 2082 (internal quotation marks omitted). He then goes on to assert that “the Supreme Court has gone even further—based on ex post facto prohibitions, it has also protected the inverse right to have an inmate’s opportunities for early release or a sentence reduction changed after the date of the crime.” Id. at 10-11 (citing Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30-31, 101 S.Ct. 960, Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), and Garner, 529 U.S. at 249, 120 S.Ct. 1362).

There is a material factual distinction regarding Weaver and its progeny, however, that forecloses relief in the instant case. The cases that Kruger cites all involve instances in which the law stripped prisoners of opportunities for early release that existed at the time that their crimes were committed. In Weaver, the “gain time” formula that would have allowed a prisoner’s early release was “in place on both the date of the offense and the date of sentence ing.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 26, 101 S.Ct. 960. That formula was more lenient than the formula enacted four years later, rendering the latter’s application to the prisoner a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. at 35-36, 101 S.Ct. 960. Similarly, in Lynce, the retroactive cancellation of earned early-release credits, to which the prisoner was entitled under a law preceding the commission of his offense, was held to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Lynce, 519 U.S. at 445-47, 117 S.Ct. 891. In a related vein, the Court in Gamer remanded the case for development of the record in order to ascertain whether changes in parole-board hearing rules from those in effect at the time of the prisoner’s offense created a sufficient risk of lengthier incarceration to invoke the Ex Post Facto Clause. Garner, 529 U.S. at 257, 120 S.Ct. 1362. These eases illustrate the principle that a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it increases the punishment “assigned by law when the act to be punished occurred.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30, 101 S.Ct. 960.

Unlike the laws at issue in Weaver, Lynce, and Gamer, the law that Kruger relies on for a modified sentence—that is, Amendment 782—came into place after the commission of his crime. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Diggs, “the leniency policy [in Weaver] already existed and was subsequently taken away. Here, however, the leniency policy (Amendment 7[82]) was enacted after [Kruger] was sentenced. He simply has no entitlement to the retroactive application of favorable policies or amendments enacted after his sentencing.” Diggs, 768 F.3d at 646 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

Kruger counters that the “leniency policy” on which we should focus is the version of § lB1.10(b)(2) that existed in 2009 prior to Amendment 759 in 2011. This version was in effect at the time Kruger committed his offense and, according to Kruger, was “subsequently taken away.” Id. The problem with Kruger’s argument is that Amendment 759 negatively impacts ’his sentence “only because he is not among the ,,, category of defendants to which .... [Amendment 782] retroactively appl[i]es, not because his punishment has been retroactively increased.” See Diggs, 768 F.3d at 646. Without subsequent Amendment 782 altering the Base Offense Level for the quantity of pseudoephedrine that Kruger possessed, Amendment 759’s alteration of U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2) would have had no effect on his sentence. Moreover, Amendment 759’s maximum potential effect on Kruger was to deprive him of the possibility of a lower sentence; it did not increase the sentence already imposed.

Kruger, in sum, has no constitutional right to the retroactive application of a more lenient version of the Guidelines. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (“We are aware of no constitutional requirement of retroactivity that ■ entitles defendants sentenced to a term of imprisonment to the benefit of subsequent Guidelines amendments.”). This means that Amendment 759, by foreclosing retroactive relief under Amendment 782, does not have the effect, prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause, “of increasing the measure of punishment” imposed upon Kruger in 2009. See Cal. Dept. of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995). Rather, Amendment 759 does no more than foreclose the possibility of a reduced sentence on the basis of an amendment that did not even exist at the time -Kruger was sentenced and as to the application of which he has no legal -entitlement. Amendment 759 is consequently not an ex post facto law insofar as Kruger is concerned.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.