
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Auzio HEWLETT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-2451.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2018.
    
    Decided Dec. 26, 2013.
    Jonathan H. Koenig, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Auzio Hewlett, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       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).
    
   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, 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, — F.3d -, 2013 WL 6231727 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc).

Affirmed.  