United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
SAMUEL K. TIDWELL, Petitioner,
J.E. KRUEGER, Respondent.
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Samuel K.
Tidwell's Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59. (Doc. 4). For the reasons stated
below, the Motion is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
and Procedural History
was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and crack
cocaine, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 846, distributing
crack cocaine, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
and using and carrying firearms during the conspiracy, in
violation of 28 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. 1 at 11). At the
sentencing hearing, the court found Petitioner responsible
for 14.5 kilograms of powder cocaine and 9.5 kilograms of
cocaine base. United States v. Tidwell, No. 13-2736,
at 2 (7th Cir. Feb. 6, 2014). This resulted in a base offense
level of 40, to which the district court added four levels
for Petitioner's leadership role in the offense, for a
total offense level of 44. Id. The court originally
sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment for the conspiracy
count. Id. Additionally, the court sentenced
Petitioner to a concurrent forty-year term of imprisonment on
the distribution counts and a consecutive five-year term of
imprisonment on the firearm count. Id. Petitioner
appealed his conviction and sentence, which were subsequently
affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. United
States v. Evans, 92 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1996). Petitioner
filed for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court which was denied. Tidwell v. United States,
519 U.S. 972 (1996).
remainder of Petitioner's procedural history is
extensive. By the time Petitioner filed this motion,
Petitioner had already filed at least four § 2255
motions, three applications for permission to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion,  and one other
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
to the original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are the
following motions. According to Petitioner, he filed his
first § 2255 motion in the summer of 1996. (Doc 1 at 4).
Then, on June 30, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction because
of Amendment 782's two-step reduction of the sentencing
guidelines. On June 30, 2016, Judge Reinhard granted
Petitioner's motion and reduced his sentence from life
imprisonment to 420 months imprisonment.
October 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged four
grounds: 1) that “Amendment 782 [to the Sentencing
Guidelines] gravely alters the drug amounts as calculated at
Movant's sentencing;” 2) inaccurate drug amounts;
3) improper application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and 4)
“clerical error in judgment.” (Doc. 1 at 6-8).
Court dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Doc. 2). The Court found that Petitioner failed to
satisfy the requirements of In re Davenport, 147
F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998), which requires a prisoner to prove
that § 2255 motion is an inadequate or ineffective
remedy and before it allows a prisoner to challenge his
sentence through a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 2 at 5). Specifically, the Court
found that Petitioner had already received a sentence
reduction pursuant to Amendment 782. Id.
Additionally, the Court found that Petitioner's remaining
claims could have been brought during one of his four
previous § 2255 motions. Id. The Court also
found that Petitioner's arguments did not rely on a new
case of statutory interpretation. Id.
Petitioner did not prove that a § 2255 would be
inadequate or ineffective, the Court consider his petition to
be a successive § 2255 motion in disguise. Id.
at 8. Because Petitioner brought it without permission from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Id. Additionally, the Court declined to issue a
certificate of appealability. Id. at 9.
November 21, 2016, Petitioner filed this Motion for
Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
(Doc. 4). Petitioner sets forth two arguments. First,
Petitioner argues that he was improperly convicted of §
924(c). Id. at 1. Second, Petitioner
argues that his drug amounts were improperly
calculated. Id. at 4.
request to alter or amend judgment filed pursuant to Rule
59(e) may only be granted if a movant clearly establishes
that the court made a manifest error of law or fact, or
presents newly discovered evidence. LB Credit Corp. v.
Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.
1995). A manifest error is the “wholesale disregard,
misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224
F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A movant may not advance in a Rule 59(e) motion
arguments he should have raised before judgment was entered.
Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506, 512
(7th Cir. 2007).
does not assert that the Court made a manifest error of law
or fact; nor does Petitioner present newly discovered
evidence. Rather Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
is nothing more than identical copy ...