IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
July 31, 2006
UNITED STATES PLAINTIFF,
MARK L. NEFF DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Mark Neff's ("Neff") Motion for Correction of Presentence Report Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 32(d) and 32(i)(4). For the reasons set forth below, Neff's Motion [#197] is DENIED.
Neff filed the instant motion essentially asking this Court to correct his pre-sentence report. Neff argues that the probation officer improperly relied on two different versions of the Sentencing Guidelines in the preparation of the report and the calculation of his base offense level. As a result of this error, Neff argues that he is currently being held in prison in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.
A review of the procedural history in this case indicates that this Court cannot provide Neff with any relief because Neff did not raise this argument in his direct appeal. See United States v. Neff, 61 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 1995) ("The only issue on appeal is the denial of Neff's motion to suppress the gun"). As the time period for filing a direct appeal expired over ten years ago, Neff's motion must be denied. Additionally, to the extent that Neff is attempting to argue this as a collateral attack on his sentence, he has not received authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive § 2255 petition.
For the reasons set forth above, Neff's motion [#197] is DENIED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.