United States v. Autry Jones
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13573
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Jones was convicted of possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and originally sentenced to life on each count; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Jones filed multiple § 2255 motions in 1997 and 1999; both were dismissed (time-barred and successive), and he was denied authorization for a successive motion in 2005.
- In 2012 the district court granted an agreed motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) reducing Jones’s life sentences to 405 months (concurrent); a later § 3582(c)(2) reduction to 327 months was granted after briefing but took effect later.
- In 2013 Jones filed another § 2255 motion alleging trial counsel ineffective assistance; the district court treated it as successive and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit granted a COA on whether a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction creates a “new judgment” under Magwood v. Patterson such that the § 2255 filing would not be second or successive.
- The court analyzed § 3582(c)(2)’s text and precedent (including Dillon and Fifth Circuit precedent) and concluded the reduction modifies a sentence but does not create a new judgment for AEDPA gatekeeping purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction produces a “new judgment” under Magwood such that a subsequent § 2255 is not "second or successive" | The § 3582(c)(2) reduction produced a new judgment (Magwood governs), so his ineffective-assistance claim is not successive | § 3582(c)(2) only authorizes a limited reduction/modification of an existing final sentence, not a new judgment; Magwood does not apply | The reduction is a modification, not a new judgment; the § 2255 motion is successive |
| Appropriate procedural disposition when a district court transfers a successive § 2255 | Transfer improper if reduction created new judgment | Transfer proper; petitioner must seek appellate authorization under AEDPA | Transfer affirmed; clerk directed to notify Jones to file for authorization within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (holding that a habeas petition challenging a new judgment is not "second or successive")
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (holding § 3582(c)(2) authorizes sentence reductions, not plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726 (5th Cir.) (holding sentence modification under § 3582(c) does not restart AEDPA’s limitations period)
- Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.) (describing AEDPA’s gatekeeping for successive habeas petitions)
- In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234 (5th Cir.) (defining when a later petition is "second or successive")