USA v. Jacoby Walker, No. 23-2197 (7th Cir. 2023)

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 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. ORDER 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 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. APP. P. 40(a)(1). DISMISSED

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.