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 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.