Garcia v. United States, 1:16-cv-06834

Defendant Lawton (Latwon) Garcia pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics and was sentenced to 80 months imprisonment plus 4 years supervised release.
Garcia filed a motion dated August 29, 2016 styled under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking at least a two-level minor-role reduction under Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
The court construed the § 2255 filing as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (sentence reduction based on subsequent Guidelines amendment).
Garcia’s plea agreement contained a waiver: if his sentence was within or below the stipulated range, he would waive the right to appeal or make a motion challenging the sentence. His 80‑month sentence was below the applicable Guidelines range (87–108 months).
The Sentencing Commission did not list Amendment 794 among amendments to be applied retroactively in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), and courts in this district had declined to apply Amendment 794 retroactively.
The court denied relief because (1) Garcia knowingly waived the right to challenge his sentence and (2) Amendment 794 is not retroactive under § 3582(c)(2). The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia can obtain a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 794	Amendment 794 reduces his Guidelines range and entitles him to at least a two‑level reduction	Court lacks authority because Amendment 794 is not retroactive under § 1B1.10(d)	Denied — Amendment 794 not retroactive; § 3582(c)(2) relief unavailable
Whether Garcia can proceed despite his plea‑agreement waiver	Waiver should not bar relief because Amendment 794 materially reduces his guideline exposure	Waiver is valid and bars appeals or collateral motions when sentence is within/below stipulated range	Denied — waiver was knowing and voluntary; bars this challenge
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Garcia implicitly argues issues merit appeal	Government argues no substantial constitutional question; appeal would not be in good faith	Denied — no substantial showing of denial of constitutional right; appeal not in good faith

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability; reasonable jurists must be able to debate the district court’s resolution)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (clarifies the showing required for a certificate of appealability)