United States v. Brandon Miller, 697 F. App'x 842

Miller pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone; offense conduct converted to ~317 kg marijuana equivalent and yielded a base offense level of 26 under the 2011 Guidelines.
District court calculated total offense level 23, criminal history VI, guideline range 92–115 months and sentenced Miller to 96 months imprisonment + 3 years supervised release.
Miller moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after Amendment 782, which reduced many drug base offense levels by two; both Miller and the government agreed his amended Guideline range was 77–96 months.
The district court found Miller eligible but denied a reduction at step two after weighing § 3553(a) factors and Miller’s prison disciplinary record (including Suboxone use). Miller’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal Miller argued the district court’s step-two denial was procedurally and substantively unreasonable under Booker; the government relied on appellate-review limits for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.
The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because claims of Booker unreasonableness in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not constitute a "violation of law" under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion at step two of a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Booker reasonableness	Miller: district court’s second-step denial was procedurally and substantively unreasonable under Booker	Government: appellate review under § 3742 is limited; Booker-style unreasonableness claims do not allege a "violation of law" that opens § 3742(a)(1) review	Held: No jurisdiction — Booker unreasonableness in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings is not a cognizable "violation of law" under § 3742(a)(1); appeal dismissed
Whether Miller’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was procedurally timely and its effect on appeal deadlines	Miller argued reconsideration merited review (implicitly contesting procedural treatment)	Government noted timelines; district court and precedent treat § 3582(c)(2) as continuation of criminal case with appeal timelines	Held: Notes that Miller’s reconsideration was untimely and did not restart the appeal clock; court did not dismiss on timeliness because government did not raise the timeliness defense

United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277 (6th Cir.) (district court may modify sentence only as authorized by statute)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step framework for § 3582(c)(2) — eligibility then discretionary reduction under § 3553(a))
United States v. Bowers, 615 F.3d 715 (6th Cir.) (Booker-unreasonableness claims do not constitute a "violation of law" under § 3742(a)(1) in § 3582(c)(2) appeals)
United States v. Brown, 817 F.3d 486 (6th Cir.) (§ 3582(c)(2) motions are continuations of the criminal case for appeal-timing purposes)
United States v. Thompson, 714 F.3d 946 (6th Cir.) (discussing Dillon’s two-step approach for sentence-reduction proceedings)