U.S. v. Tidwell

Full title: United States v. Tidwell

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date published: Aug 23, 2004

93 CR 20024-3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2004)

Opinion

93 CR 20024-3.

August 23, 2004

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge

Samuel Tidwell, a federal prisoner, has filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § Amendment 951. Amendment 951 does not apply to Tidwell as the subject matter of the amendment relates to guideline § 2D1.2 — a section not applied in Tidwell's sentencing.

While Tidwell's motion refers to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), he expressly states in his motion that he is not "filing this motion because of a constitutional claim" and is only referring to Blakely for "clarifying" purposes. To the extent such references to Blakely could be read as a separate claim, such a claim could only be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which would be improper as a successive § 2255 motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Tidwell's motion in its entirety.