United States v. Stephens
Docket: No. 12-3848
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 26, 2013; Federal Appellate Court
Antonyo Stephens filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied this motion, determining that Stephens was ineligible for a reduction because his plea agreement specified a 144-month sentence not linked to a guidelines section altered by the Fair Sentencing Act. After his appeal was dismissed as untimely, Stephens submitted a second motion under § 3582(c)(2), claiming the court had misunderstood the legal grounds of his first motion. The district court treated this second request as a motion for reconsideration and denied it, citing that successive motions based on the same guidelines amendment are not permitted under § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Stephens primarily contested the initial denial, arguing that his plea agreement did utilize a later-amended guidelines range as the basis for his sentence. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling, noting that once a motion under § 3582(c)(2) is resolved, a defendant cannot submit a successive motion to present a different argument or seek another opportunity for appeal. Furthermore, the appeal regarding the second motion was deemed untimely for reconsideration since the period to contest the first motion's denial had elapsed.