United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
August 9, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
CASEY R. BOCK, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Bock's motion for review under Rule
60(b)(1)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 28).
This is Bock's second motion asking the Court to reconsider its
June 15, 2005 Order denying his motion to modify his sentence.
Here, as in his previous request, Bock contends that the Court
mistakenly found that Amendment 674 of the Sentencing Guidelines
is not retroactive and inapplicable to his case.
The Seventh Circuit has held that any motion which attacks the
merits of a district court's decision and that is filed more
than ten days after entry of judgment is considered a motion
under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60. See United States v.
47 West 644 Route 38, 190 F.3d 781, 783 n. 1 (7th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 1270 (2000); Britton v. Swift
Transp. Co., Inc., 127 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1997);
Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 750 (7th Cir. 1995).
Rule 60(a), limited to clerical errors, is inapplicable here.
Rule 60(b) authorizes a district court to relieve a party from
a final judgment or order for five specific reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
(2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . .;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released or discharged. . . .
In addition to the five specific reasons, Rule 60(b)(6)
provides a catchall provision for relief from final judgment or
order. Reinsurance Co. v. Administrative Asigurarilor,
902 F.2d 1275
, 1277 (7th Cir. 1990). The catchall provision
allows the court to grant a Rule 60(b) motion for "any . . .
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."
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
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.