Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

U.S. v. TIDWELL

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


January 9, 2004.

U.S.A.
v.
SAMUEL K. TIDWELL

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Samuel K. Tidwell, a federal prisoner, has filed a request for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The government has filed a response detailing the procedural history of Tidwell's conviction, direct appeal, habeas petitions under § 2255 and related appeals, and three prior motions by Tidwell pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Tidwell filed a reply to the government's response. The court denies the motion for relief under § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) does not provide for unlimited motions for relief based on the same amendment. Amendment 505 of the sentencing guidelines was the source of Tidwell's first § 3582(c)(2) motion which was denied by this court and ultimately affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Tidwell, 178 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 1999). That amendment is relied on by Tidwell in this later motion, and the court concludes it has no statutory authority to again review Tidwell's original sentence under § 3582(c)(2). The court understands Tidwell's frustration with a life sentence and acknowledges his rehabilitative efforts while serving his sentence. Nevertheless, there is no basis in § 3582(c)(2) to again review the sentence.

20040109

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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