United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on Defendant Melvin Taylor's
New Motion for a Lower Sentence Under 3582(c)(2) [ECF No.
677], filed pro se on September 6, 2016. The Defendant styles
his motion as a New Motion because in September 2015 he
received a 2-point reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. The Court reduced the Defendant's sentence
from 188 months to 151 months. The Defendant is not satisfied
with that reduction, and asks that the Court further reduce
his sentence to 121 months, which represents the low end of
his amended Guideline range.
Defendant is attempting to do what no Rule or statute allows.
The Seventh Circuit has held that defendants “are not
entitled to more than one opportunity to request a lower
sentence, for any given change in the Guideline range”
United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir.
2011) (“Once the district judge makes a decision, Rule
35 applies and curtails any further power of revision, unless
the Commission again changes the Guidelines and makes that
change, too, retroactive.”). “In other words,
prisoners have only one bite at the apple per retroactive
amendment to the sentencing guidelines.”
Beard, 745 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing
United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th
the limit of one motion per amendment is not jurisdictional,
id. at 291, and can be waived if the Government does
not raise it, see Eberhart v. United States, 546
U.S. 12, 19 (2005). The Government has raised the limitation
(see Resp. ¶ 6, ECF No. 680), so the Court will
adhere to the Seventh Circuit's precedence allowing only
one sentence-reduction motion per retroactive change to the
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant's
New Motion for a Lower Sentence ...