United States v. Chronister
663 F. App'x 642
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jessica Chronister pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiring to escape custody; multiple indictments consolidated in the Western District of Oklahoma.
- The PSR attributed 206.82 grams of actual methamphetamine (marijuana equivalent 4,364.2 kg), yielding a base offense level 34; after adjustments and acceptance of responsibility, total offense level 37, Criminal History III, guideline range 262–327 months.
- District court varied downward and sentenced Chronister to 168 months on the methamphetamine counts (and 60 months concurrent on the escape count).
- Chronister sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 (which lowered certain drug offense base levels) and separately filed a § 2255 habeas petition invoking Johnson (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), seeking a COA.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion and denied habeas relief; Chronister appealed and requested a COA and in forma pauperis status on the § 2255 appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chronister is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 | Amendment 782 lowers base offense level such that her applicable guideline range is reduced and she should get further reduction | § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 prohibit reducing a sentence that is already below the amended guideline range | Denied — her imposed sentence (168 months) is below the post-Amendment guideline range; § 1B1.10 bars a reduction |
| Constitutional challenge to the binding effect of USSC policy statements for § 3582(c)(2) (separation-of-powers) | The Commission’s binding policy statements may be unconstitutional and cannot bar relief | The argument was forfeited (not raised below); circuit precedent rejects the separation-of-powers challenge | Forfeited and not considered; even on merits, circuit precedent rejects the challenge |
| Whether Chronister is entitled to a COA for her § 2255 habeas claim invoking Johnson v. United States | Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause bears on her case and warrants habeas relief / COA | Chronister was not sentenced under ACCA or any similar residual-clause provision; Johnson is inapplicable | COA denied — no substantial showing of a constitutional violation; Johnson does not apply |
| Motion for in forma pauperis status on § 2255 appeal | Chronister cannot pay fees and her arguments have nonfrivolous merit | Her Johnson-based claim is frivolous here because it does not apply; lacks good-faith nonfrivolous argument | IFP denied — appeal lacks a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument for habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (sets limits on sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) and enforces applicability of Commission policy statements)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (guided the treatment of advisory sentencing guidelines)
- United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833 (10th Cir.) (affirming prohibition on reductions when sentence already below amended range)
- United States v. Pedraza, 550 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir.) (same principle on § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.) (applying Amendment 782 to drug-quantity base levels)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating ACCA residual clause for vagueness)
- United States v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.) (rejecting separation-of-powers challenge to Commission policy statements)