United States v. Anthony Alexander

2
1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 7, 2013∗
Decided May 15, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 13-1174 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Indiana,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Hammond Division.

v. No. 2:04-CR-71
Rudy Lozano, Judge.
ANTHONY ALEXANDER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Order

Anthony Alexander asked the district court to reduce his sentence under
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which applies retroactively. The district
judge denied the motion, ruling that Alexander’s range had not been reduced because
he is a career offender. Alexander appealed but failed to pay the docketing fee; the
appeal was dismissed. He then filed another motion in the district court, supposedly

∗ 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).
No. 13-1174 Page 2

based on Amendment 706 as well as Amendment 750. The district judge denied this
motion for the same reason, and Alexander appealed again.

Congress has authorized only one sentence-reduction motion in response to a
given change in the Guidelines. Successive motions cannot be used to obtain a chance to
make a different or better argument—or, here, to get a second crack at an appeal. See
United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011). Alexander contends that his motion is
not successive, because it relies on Amendment 706. But Amendment 750 supersedes
Amendment 706 and completely restates the sentencing tables for crack-cocaine
offenses. The currently applicable rules are contained in Amendment 750. Alexander
had a full opportunity to contend that he is not a career offender. Having bypassed that
opportunity earlier, he cannot revive it by another, functionally identical motion.

The district court held that it lacks authority to reduce Alexander’s sentence.
Given Redd, that decision must be affirmed.