Charles A. Armstrong v. United States, 986 F.3d 1345

Armstrong pleaded guilty (2012) to drug and firearm offenses and received concurrent long prison terms; direct appeal affirmed.
He filed a timely § 2255 motion in 2014 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; while that petition was pending, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782.
The district court reduced Armstrong’s sentence sua sponte in 2015 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (retroactive Guidelines amendment), lowering the term but not conducting a plenary resentencing.
The district court denied the 2014 § 2255 petition; Armstrong then filed a second § 2255 petition in 2018 challenging the 2015 sentence reduction and arguing the reduction produced a new, intervening judgment.
The district court dismissed the 2018 petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition under AEDPA; Armstrong appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 3582(c) sentence reduction constitutes a "new, intervening judgment" under Magwood so that a later § 2255 is not "second or successive"	Armstrong: The § 3582(c) reduction is a new judgment (like a resentencing), so Magwood allows a new § 2255 attack without AEDPA authorization	Government/District Court: § 3582(c) effects only a limited sentence modification, not a de novo resentencing; therefore it is not a new judgment and AEDPA authorization is required	The Eleventh Circuit held § 3582(c) reductions are not new, intervening judgments; Armstrong’s second § 2255 was second or successive and required appellate authorization, so dismissal is affirmed

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (explains that challenges to a later, intervening judgment are not "second or successive")
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (§ 3582(c)(2) permits only limited sentence reductions, not plenary resentencing)
United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.) (§ 3582(c) adjustments do not constitute de novo resentencing)
Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (§ 3582 sentence reductions do not reset AEDPA’s limitations period or finality of judgment)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (discusses concept of "new judgment" in habeas context)
Patterson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. en banc) (applies Magwood principles to intervening orders)
White v. United States, 745 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.) (Magwood does not reset count when sentence reduced due to retroactive Guidelines change)
United States v. Jones, 796 F.3d 483 (5th Cir.) (§ 3582(c) reductions modify existing sentence, not wipe clean habeas history)
Sherrod v. United States, 858 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir.) (limited § 3582(c)(2) adjustments do not create new judgments)
United States v. Quary, 881 F.3d 820 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes § 3582(c) reductions from imposition of a new sentence)