United States v. Coleman
692 F. App'x 966
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vernon Earl Coleman, a federal prisoner convicted in 2011 of possession with intent to distribute ≥100 kg of marijuana, was sentenced to 164 months.
- Coleman filed a "Motion to Correct Sentence" arguing he should have been sentenced using criminal history category IV and an offense level of 31 (with a 3‑level acceptance reduction), asserting the judge directed that at sentencing.
- The district court treated the motion as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it for lack of circuit authorization required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
- The court observed the sentencing record applied the career‑offender guideline (resulting in CHC VI and offense level 34, reduced to 31 for acceptance), and any reference to CHC IV reflected the effect of a downward variance, not a guidelines calculation error.
- The court declined to transfer the motion to the Tenth Circuit for authorization because Coleman’s claim plainly could not satisfy § 2255(h) standards and transfer would be futile.
- Coleman’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and in forma pauperis status on appeal were denied; he remains liable for the appellate filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by dismissing the motion as a second/successive § 2255 motion for lack of circuit authorization | Coleman: his sentence should be corrected to reflect CHC IV and offense level 31 per the judge’s direction at sentencing | Government/District Court: the motion is a § 2255 collateral attack; Coleman did not obtain required circuit authorization under §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3) | Court: Affirmed dismissal; motion is a successive § 2255 claim and lacked required authorization |
| Whether the district court should have transferred the motion to the Tenth Circuit for authorization instead of dismissing | Coleman: did not meaningfully argue transfer; asserted entitlement to corrected sentence | District Court: transfer appropriate only when claim might meet § 2255(h) standards; here claim fails on its face | Court: Dismissal was proper because claim cannot satisfy § 2255(h) and transfer would be futile |
| Whether Coleman’s sentencing challenge can satisfy § 2255(h)(1) (new evidence showing innocence) | Coleman: challenged sentencing calculation as erroneous | District Court/Gov: § 2255(h)(1) concerns factual innocence of the underlying offense, not sentencing errors | Court: Held § 2255(h)(1) inapplicable to sentencing challenges; Coleman cannot satisfy it |
| Whether Coleman showed a new retroactive rule under § 2255(h)(2) | Coleman: did not assert a new Supreme Court rule | District Court/Gov: no new rule presented | Court: Held § 2255(h)(2) not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (§ 2255 is exclusive remedy to challenge validity of judgment and sentence)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (district court may dismiss rather than transfer unauthorized successive § 2255 motions when claim fails on its face)
- In re Webster, 605 F.3d 256 (§ 2255(h)(1) pertains to innocence of underlying offense and does not cover sentencing challenges)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (requirements for in forma pauperis appeals and dismissal of frivolous appeals)