Juan White v. United States, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4899

Juan White was convicted of distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.
White unsuccessfully challenged his sentence via a §2255 collateral attack before Amendment 750 reduced crack-cocaine penalties retroactively.
The district court applied Amendment 750, reducing White’s term to 292 months in June 2012 after retroactive recalculation.
Nine months later, White filed a second §2255 petition arguing 2006 guidelines over-stated his role and that acceptance of responsibility deductions were improper, seeking further relief under §3582(c).
The district court dismissed the petition as second/successive (28 U.S.C. §2244, §2255(h)) and untimely under §2255(f); White appealed seeking a certificate of appealability.
The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that §3582(c) reductions are sentence-reduction procedures, not resentencings, and Magwood does not reset the clock or count for §2244/§2255 purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a retroactive sentence reduction under §3582(c) reset the §2244/§2255 clock and count?	White contends Magwood resets the clock and count after resentencing via §3582(c) relief.	The reduction is not resentencing; Magwood does not apply to §3582(c) procedures.	Magwood does not reset the clock or count; petition remains untimely and procedurally barred.
Is §3582(c) relief a true resentencing that would allow new collateral attacks on the revised sentence?	White argues the 2012 reduction undermines the original sentence as a new proceeding.	§3582(c) is a sentence-reduction process, not resentencing, and does not reopen original issues.	§3582(c) reduction is not resentencing; it changes the sentence without reopening earlier determinations.
Are White’s §2255 petitions time-barred and/or barred as second/successive?	White contends Amendment 750 justifies relief and that the clock restarted under §2255(f).	The petition is untimely and second/successive, unsupported by authorization from the court of appeals.	Petition untimely and barred; no authorization for a second/successive proceeding.

Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010) (restarting the collateral-attack clock when a new sentence is imposed)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (certificate of appealability requires substantial showing of a constitutional error)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582(c) is not a resentencing; it is a sentence-reduction proceeding)
United States v. Wren, 706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural framework for retroactive guideline reductions under §1B1.10)
Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2013) (addressed related considerations about time limits and successive petitions)