Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “[a] prisoner in custody ... claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States...may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” Section 2255(h)(2) provides “[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain— (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)(2); see Hrobowski v. United States, 904 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2018)).

The court continued, “[s]o although the increase in the guideline range of which the defendant complains in this case not only postdated his crime but also could have had a significant effect on his sentence, he is not entitled to be resentenced.” Id.

Because Mr. Conrad has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement, the Court need not assess whether he has established an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction.

Dillon sets forth a two-prong analysis where “[a]t step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s instruction in § 1B1.10” to determine eligibility for a sentence reduction.

The amendment allows courts to reduce a sentence for defendants who have no criminal history points and were convicted of an offense that did not involve the criteria listed under § 4C1.1(a)(2)-(10).

Sentencing Guidelines Manual outlines what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons, including medical condition, age, and family circumstances.

Mar. 9, 2021) (the 37-year-old defendant had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify his release despite his borderline obesity, history of ruptured spleen, and chronic pain).

May 6, 2020) (collecting cases); United States v. Goldberg, 2020 WL 1853298, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2020) (“While certainly admirable, a desire to help care for one’s elderly parents does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason.

They include the defendant’s history and characteristics, the seriousness of his offense, the risk of recidivism he poses, the time remaining on his sentence, the quality of his release plan, and the impact of BOP’s efforts to maintain the safety of inmates.

Completing the sentence imposed best addresses the serious nature of the pornography charge here, the need to deter Conrad from engaging in further illegal conduct, promote respect for the law and to protect the community.

As the Court explained in its November 23, 2009, ruling on this issue, however, none of these arguments establishes that the government was unable to establish a proper chain of custody.

Defendant also told Agent McDonough and Sergeant Zaglifa that he recently transferred all video and image files of child pornography from the newer laptop to an external hard drive that was also located in the Chicago Apartment.

The Court Can Consider Previously Suppressed Evidence in Determining Whether Exhibit 80 Was Obtained at the Geneva Residence The Constitution guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const.

Additionally, “although the rule is thought to deter unlawful police activity in part through the nurturing of respect for Fourth Amendment values, if applied indiscriminately it may well have the opposite effect of generating disrespect for the law and administration of justice.” Powell, 428 U.S. at 491, 96 S.Ct.

“Because the exclusionary rule precludes consideration of reliable, probative evidence, it imposes significant costs: It undeniably detracts from the truthfinding process and allows many who would otherwise be incarcerated to escape the consequences of their actions.” Scott, 524 U.S. at 364, 118 S.Ct.

Defendant also told Agent McDonough and Sergeant Zaglifa that he recently transferred all video and image files of child pornography from the newer laptop to an external hard drive that was also in the Chicago Apartment.

B. The Seventh Circuit Has Not Recognized the Knock and Talk Exception The government argues that the law enforcement officers nonetheless properly entered the deck in order to contact Defendant David Conrad.

Nonetheless, the government urges the Court to acknowledge that the knock and talk “exception” to the Fourth Amendment analysis.

Roger Conrad’s consent to enter the Geneva Residence was nonetheless limited in scope.