United States v. Booker, 1:13-cr-00050

Booker was convicted by a federal jury (Mar. 12, 2013) of attempted possession with intent to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine and sentenced to 200 months and five years supervised release (July 17, 2013).
He was sentenced under the career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. §4B1.1.
Booker moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), and separately moved for compassionate release and appointment of counsel.
Booker argued his prior convictions no longer qualify him as a career offender and sought release based on his prison conduct, personal growth, and rehabilitation.
The Government opposed all motions; the court found the guideline range for career offenders had not been lowered and that rehabilitation alone cannot constitute an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for compassionate release.
The court denied the §3582(c)(2) reduction, denied compassionate release, and denied appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Booker is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) based on guideline changes	The Sentencing Commission has not lowered the career-offender range under §4B1.1; reduction ineligible	Recent precedent allegedly makes Booker’s prior convictions no longer qualify him as a career offender	Denied — Booker’s range was not lowered; career-offender status unchanged; challenge not cognizable in §3582(c)(2) (and not via §2255)
Whether compassionate release is warranted under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1) for "extraordinary and compelling" reasons	Opposed — no extraordinary and compelling reason shown	Booker cites prison conduct, personal growth, and rehabilitation as the basis for release	Denied — rehabilitation alone is statutorily insufficient and no other extraordinary reason exists
Whether counsel should be appointed to assist Booker’s compassionate-release motion	Opposed — not necessary; court need not advance arguments for pro se litigant	Booker requests counsel but offers no basis showing necessity	Denied — no need given ineligibility for relief and Booker failed to show counsel required; pro se must brief claims

United States v. Moody, [citation="397 F. App'x 201"] (6th Cir. 2010) (career-offender reclassification claim not cognizable on a §3582(c) motion)
United States v. Bullard, 937 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2019) (defendant may not challenge career-offender classification on collateral review)
Coleman v. Shoney's, Inc., [citation="79 F. App'x 155"] (6th Cir. 2003) (pro se litigants must advance developed arguments; court is not required to construct them)