Christopher Sherrod v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9786
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sherrod pled guilty in 2013 to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced in 2014.
- He filed a § 2255 motion that the district court denied on the merits in February 2015.
- In October 2015 the district court reduced Sherrod’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (a limited retroactive Sentencing Guidelines reduction).
- Sherrod then filed another motion the district court treated as a § 2255 challenge and dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition.
- Sherrod applied to the Ninth Circuit for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, arguing the § 3582(c)(2) reduction produced a new, intervening judgment allowing a new § 2255 without this court’s authorization.
- The panel considered whether a § 3582(c)(2) reduction constitutes a new judgment under Magwood and whether Sherrod made a prima facie showing under § 2255(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction is a new, intervening judgment that permits a subsequent § 2255 without circuit authorization | Sherrod: the § 3582(c)(2) reduction resets the judgment so he can file a new § 2255 directly | Government: § 3582(c)(2) is a limited adjustment, not a new judgment; Magwood does not apply to such reductions | Held: § 3582(c)(2) reduction is not a new, intervening judgment; Magwood does not permit bypassing § 2255’s authorization requirement |
| Whether Sherrod made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) to justify authorization for second/successive relief | Sherrod: (implicitly) contends qualifying new evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule exists | Government: Sherrod has not shown newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule | Held: Sherrod failed to make the required prima facie showing under § 2255(h); authorization denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (intervening new judgment distinction for successive habeas petitions)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) authorizes only limited sentence adjustments, not plenary resentencing)
- White v. United States, 745 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (§ 3582(c)(2) reduction does not erase prior habeas filings or create a new judgment)
- United States v. Jones, 796 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2015) (same: § 3582(c)(2) does not wipe slate clean for habeas purposes)
- United States v. Aguilar-Canche, 835 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing the narrow scope of § 3582(c)(2) relief)