USA v. Tommy Cox, No. 12-2315 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 August 21, 20121 Decided August 23, 2012 Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 12-2315 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 06 CR 925 TOMMY C. COX, also known as ICE CREAM, Defendant-Appellant. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Judge. ORDER Tommy C. Cox was sentenced on March 25, 2008, to 160 months imprisonment for transporting a minor in interstate commerce for prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a), and for credit card fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). Cox appealed his prostitutionrelated convictions, and we affirmed them on August 18, 2009. United States v. Cox, 577 F.3d 1 Pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 6(b), this successive appeal has been assigned to the same panel that decided the previous appeal. No. 12-2315 Page 2 833 (7th Cir. 2009). Two years later, Cox filed a motion with the district court requesting a special sentence reduction based on mitigating factors, that, he argued, the court overlooked during sentencing. On September 30, 2011, the district court denied Cox s motion because it did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirmed, but modified the district court s decision to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Cox s arguments were untimely and not recognized under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Cox, No. 11-3348, 7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012. On May 15, 2012, Cox filed another motion for a sentence reduction on similar grounds to those in the motion that was dismissed in January 2012. The district court dismissed this motion for want of jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the district court s judgment. The district court lacks jurisdiction because Cox s motion is untimely and not recognized under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We warn Cox not to continue peppering the court with these motions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
