A district court has broad discretion in granting or denying
the motions. Del Carmen v. Emerson Elec. Co., Commercial Cam
Div.,
908 F.2d 158, 161 (7th Cir. 1990). Further, the
Seventh Circuit has emphasized that Rule 60(b) relief is
reserved for exceptional circumstances. Mares v. Busby,
34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994). The rule does not permit a
party to correct simple legal errors. "Rather, it exists to allow
courts to overturn decisions where `special circumstances'
justify and `extraordinary remedy.'" Cash v. Illinois Div. of
Mental Health,
209 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Russell, 51 F.3d at 749). Accord Dickerson v. Board of
Education,
32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994). As stated in the Court's June 15, 2005 Order, U.S.S.G.
1B1.10(a), the relevant policy statement, provides:
Where a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment,
and the guideline range applicable to that defendant
has subsequently been lowered as a result of an
amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in
subsection (c) below, a reduction in the defendant's
term of imprisonment is authorized under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If none of the amendments listed in
subsection (c) is applicable, a reduction in the
defendant's term of imprisonment under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not consistent with this policy
statement and this is not authorized.
U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a) (emphasis added). Amendment 674 is not
included in subsection (c) of U.S.S.G 1B1.10.
*fn1 Thus,
Amendment 674 is not retroactive and is not applicable to Bock's
case. Further, Bock has presented no special circumstances
justifying the extraordinary remedy. The Court rejects Bock's
Rule 60(b) motion for relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Bock's motion for review under Rule 60(b)(1)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 28).