USA v. Auzio Hewlett, No. 13-2451 (7th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2 1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 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 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 03-CR-23 C.N. Clevert, Jr., Judge. v. AUZIO HEWLETT, Defendant-Appellant. 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). 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
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.
