IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 22, 2006
ERNEST TAYLOR, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court previously found that Petitioner was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, thus dismissing this action. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the Court erred in failing to consider the arguments presented in Petitioner's proposed amendments to his motion; therefore, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for consideration of those arguments. The Court then reviewed in detail each of the arguments presented in those proposed amendments and found, once again, that Petitioner was not entitled to relief under § 2255 (Doc. 35).
Now before the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 37), filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; such a motion may only be granted if a movant shows there was mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 608; Deutsch v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993). In this motion, Petitioner first argues that the Court was mistaken in finding that no error was made in the calculation of his criminal history. As discussed thoroughly in the Court's order (Doc. 35, pages 3-5, incorporated herein by reference), Petitioner's multiple pleadings in this case clearly contradict his assertion that his prior state convictions were obtained without benefit of counsel. Therefore, the Court remains convinced that its ruling regarding Petitioner's criminal history calculation was correct, and this argument is without merit.
Petitioner then presents, for the first time, an argument that his sentence is also invalidated by Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). He claims that this argument was presented in his "motion to amend his certificate of appealability," but no such pleading was filed in this Court.*fn1 The Seventh Circuit has held that the rulings in Blakely and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005) do not apply retroactively to convictions that were final prior to the Booker decision. McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). Petitioner's conviction was final long before January 12, 2005, see generally Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 1079 (2003); therefore, Booker and Blakely do not invalidate his sentence.
In summary, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge