Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Taylor

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

January 11, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MELVIN TAYLOR

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This 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.

         The 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 Cir. 2010)).

         However, 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 Guidelines.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant's New Motion for a Lower Sentence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.