UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
July 7, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN WALTZ, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
On April 7, 2004, Defendant, John Waltz, was sentenced to a term of 151 months in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (B.O.P) for the offense of bank robbery. On May 8, 2009, Defendant filed a Petition for Modification of Sentence (#34). Defendant asked this court to modify his sentence, stating that he "is specifically seeking the allowance of credit toward his sentence for participation in the drug program offered by the B.O.P." On May 14, 2009, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Petition for Modification of Sentence for Lack of Jurisdiction (#35). The Government carefully detailed the procedural history of Defendant's case, including his appeal, limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), and proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government then set out all of the reasons why this court has no jurisdiction to grant Defendant his requested relief.
On May 18, 2009, this court entered an Opinion (#36). This court stated that, following this court's careful review of Defendant's Petition (#34) and the thorough analysis set out in the Government's Motion to Dismiss (#35), this court agreed with the Government that it has no jurisdiction to grant Defendant relief. This court agreed with the Government that there was no authorization under statute or rule for this court to grant the relief requested by Defendant.
On May 26, 2009, Defendant filed a Reply to the Government's Motion to Dismiss (#37).
On July 1, 2009, Defendant sent a letter to this court. Defendant stated in the letter that the document labeled a "Reply" was actually a motion for reconsideration. Defendant requested information regarding the status of his motion for reconsideration.
This court has carefully reviewed the arguments made by Defendant in his Reply (#37). Following this careful review, this court again concludes that it has no jurisdiction to grant Defendant the relief requested.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The clerk is directed to docket Defendant's letter in this case.
(2) To the extent that Defendant's Reply (#37) can be considered a Motion for Reconsideration, it is DENIED.
ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2009
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.