Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161123_0000577.CIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-16 14:10:35
Document Index: 102891224

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 2241', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 924']

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Samuel K. Tidwell's Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (Doc. 4). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Pertinent to the original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are the following motions. According to Petitioner, he filed his first § 2255 motion in the summer of 1996. (Doc 1 at 4). Then, on June 30, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction because of Amendment 782's two-step reduction of the sentencing guidelines. On June 30, 2016, Judge Reinhard granted Petitioner's motion and reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to 420 months imprisonment.
On October 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged four grounds: 1) that “Amendment 782 [to the Sentencing Guidelines] gravely alters the drug amounts as calculated at Movant's sentencing;” 2) inaccurate drug amounts; 3) improper application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and 4) “clerical error in judgment.” (Doc. 1 at 6-8).
The Court dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 2). The Court found that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998), which requires a prisoner to prove that § 2255 motion is an inadequate or ineffective remedy and before it allows a prisoner to challenge his sentence through a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 2 at 5). Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner had already received a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782. Id. Additionally, the Court found that Petitioner's remaining claims could have been brought during one of his four previous § 2255 motions. Id. The Court also found that Petitioner's arguments did not rely on a new case of statutory interpretation. Id.
Because Petitioner did not prove that a § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective, the Court consider his petition to be a successive § 2255 motion in disguise. Id. at 8. Because Petitioner brought it without permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Additionally, the Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Id. at 9.
On November 21, 2016, Petitioner filed this Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (Doc. 4). Petitioner sets forth two arguments. First, Petitioner argues that he was improperly convicted of § 924(c).[4] Id. at 1. Second, Petitioner argues that his drug amounts were improperly calculated.[5] Id. at 4.
Petitioner does not assert that the Court made a manifest error of law or fact; nor does Petitioner present newly discovered evidence. Rather Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is nothing more than identical copy ...