United States v. Campos, 630 F. App'x 813

In 2011 Matthew Campos pled guilty to: Count 1 — being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); Count 2 — distribution of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
PSR assigned base offense level 20 to each count, applied a two‑level multiple‑count enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, and a three‑level reduction for acceptance, yielding offense level 19 and a Guidelines range of 57–71 months (Criminal History V).
The district court sentenced Campos to two concurrent 70‑month terms (within the Guidelines). He did not appeal that sentence.
In 2015 Campos moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on U.S.S.G. Amendment 782 (retroactive lowering of certain drug offense base levels).
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, reasoning Amendment 782 would not change Campos’s applicable Guidelines range because the combined offense level calculation under § 3D1.4 would remain the same; Campos appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 782 lowers Campos’s applicable Guidelines range under § 3582(c)(2)	Amendment 782 reduces the drug count base level and therefore should reduce his sentence	Amendment 782 lowers only Count 2’s base level but the combined offense level under § 3D1.4 remains unchanged, so no reduction is authorized	Court affirmed: Amendment 782 does not lower his applicable range, so § 3582(c)(2) reduction unavailable
Legality of applying the multiple‑count enhancement at the original sentencing	The multiple‑count enhancement under § 3D1.4 was erroneously applied	Enhancement was properly applied at sentencing	Court declined to consider—challenge to original sentencing procedures must be raised on direct appeal or § 2255, not in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding
Right to appointed counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motion	Campos contends the court should have appointed counsel for his reduction motion	No statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motions beyond direct appeal	Court held no right to appointment; denial of counsel was not error
Duty to consult the Sentencing Commission before denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion	Court should have consulted the Sentencing Commission before denying relief	No authority requires consultation; discretionary and unnecessary	Court held no consultation was required and affirmed denial

United States v. Torres‑Aquino, 334 F.3d 939 (10th Cir. 2003) (procedural sentencing challenges must be raised on direct appeal or § 2255)
Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2008) (no right to appointed counsel for § 3582(c)(2) motions)