United States of America v. Auzio Hewlett

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 5, 2013∗
Decided December 26, 2013
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 13-2451
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUZIO HEWLETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 03-CR-23
C.N. Clevert, Jr., Judge.
Order
The United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted.
Last year we held that the district court had properly denied Auzio Hewlett’s
motion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) seeking a lower sentence. We observed that Hewlett,
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13-2451 Page 2
whose sentence was set by a statutory minimum, could not receive any benefit from a
reduction in the range under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Hewlett then filed another §3582(c)(2) motion, the district court denied it again, and
Hewlett appealed again. We affirm again.
United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011), holds that §3582(c)(2) authorizes
only one motion, per prisoner, per retroactive change in the Guidelines. Redd required
the district court to deny this successive motion. Moreover, the only support that
Hewlett offered for his new motion—the decision of a panel in United States v. Blewett,
719 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2013), is incompatible with the law of this circuit, see United States
v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013), and has been repudiated by the Sixth Circuit itself.
See United States v. Blewett, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24018 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --