United States v. Jenifer, 1:14-cr-00411-RDB

Brooke Lunn pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and was sentenced on September 2, 2015.
The Court calculated a total offense level of 35 and Criminal History Category II, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 188–235 months; the Court imposed a 144-month sentence.
Lunn filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking vacatur or reduction of her sentence, arguing (1) her criminal history category was erroneous (she claimed Category III) and (2) she was entitled to a minor-role reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 794.
The Government opposed; the Court reviewed the record (including the Presentence Report) and found no hearing necessary.
The Court denied relief: (1) the criminal history claim failed because the record shows Category II was applied correctly; (2) the Amendment 794 claim failed because § 2255 is not the proper vehicle, Amendment 794 was not in effect at sentencing and is not listed as retroactive, and in any event Lunn’s factual role (making ~30 trafficking trips) precluded a minor-role adjustment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Incorrect Criminal History Category	Lunn: Court used Category III in error; she should have a lower category	Government/record: Court used Category II; PSR supports Category II	Denied — record shows Category II correctly applied
Entitlement to minor-role reduction under Amendment 794	Lunn: Amendment 794’s clarifying commentary makes her eligible for a mitigating role adjustment	Government: §2255 is improper vehicle; Amendment 794 not retroactive to her 2015 sentence; facts show she was an essential, not minor, participant	Denied — §2255 improper for this relief, Amendment not retroactive, and merits fail because Lunn played essential role
Certificate of Appealability (COA)	Lunn: (implicit) seeks leave to appeal denial	Gov: Reasonable jurists would not find claims debatable	Denied — COA not warranted

United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing Amendment 794 and its purpose to clarify mitigating role analyses)
United States v. Jones, [citation="143 F. App'x 526"] (4th Cir. 2005) (§2255 is not the proper vehicle for a sentence-reduction motion under §3582)
United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal in §2255 proceedings)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for showing that reasonable jurists would find district court’s assessment debatable for COA)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (clarifies COA standard and appellate review scope)