The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-2197•United States of America v. Jacoby Walker
23-2197Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitNov 21, 2023
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 17, 2023
Decided November 21, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JACOBY WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division.
No. 2:97 CR 88
James T. Moody,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jacoby Walker was sentenced in 1999 for six drug and firearms crimes. We
affirmed on direct appeal, and the district court denied his motion for collateral relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Walker later filed two requests for resentencing, one under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and
another under § 404 of the First Step Act. The district judge granted the requests in part
and reduced Walker’s sentence. Walker appealed that order, raising several claims of
error and arguing that the judge should have reduced his sentence even further. We
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 23-2197 Page 2
rejected his arguments and affirmed the judge’s resentencing order. United States v.
Walker, No. 21-1551 (7th Cir. Nov. 5, 2021).
On September 16, 2022—about ten months after our order affirming the judge’s
resentencing decision—Walker filed a document in the district court captioned as a
“Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6).”
The judge denied the motion on May 2, 2023, and Walker appealed.
We dismiss the appeal. Despite the caption, Walker’s motion is functionally a
successive § 2255 motion or perhaps a belated petition for rehearing of our November
2021 decision affirming the judge’s resentencing order. If the former, it is unauthorized.
See §§ 2255(h), 2244. If the latter, it was directed to the wrong court and is untimely. See
FED. R. A PP. P. 40(a)(1).
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.