United States v. Jermaine Hardiman, 982 F.3d 1234

At trial a jury returned a special verdict finding Hardiman responsible for "at least 28 grams but less than 280 grams" of cocaine base.
At sentencing the district court disagreed with the jury and attributed more than 280 grams to Hardiman, increasing his Guidelines range.
After Hardiman’s direct appeal became final, this Court decided United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, which held a district court may not find a drug quantity in excess of a jury’s special-verdict finding.
Hardiman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition arguing his Sixth Amendment rights were violated under Pimentel-Lopez; the district court denied relief.
Hardiman separately moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782; the district court found him eligible for a reduction but declined to reduce his sentence after weighing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The appeals court consolidated the appeals and affirmed the district court: it held Pimentel-Lopez announces a new procedural rule not retroactive on collateral review, and § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not authorize revisiting the drug-quantity finding here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hardiman)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Pimentel-Lopez applies retroactively to Hardiman’s § 2255 collateral attack	Pimentel-Lopez requires vacatur because the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right by exceeding the jury’s special-verdict drug-quantity finding.	Pimentel-Lopez announced a new procedural rule and therefore is not retroactive under Teague; Hardiman’s conviction was final before Pimentel-Lopez.	Pimentel-Lopez announced a new procedural rule not retroactive on collateral review under Teague; § 2255 denial affirmed.
Whether the district court erred in the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding by failing to apply Pimentel-Lopez to revisit the drug-quantity finding	Pimentel-Lopez requires revisiting the quantity finding and could reduce the sentence.	§ 3582(c)(2) provides only limited resentencing for a Guidelines amendment; Pimentel-Lopez does not fall within that scope and supplemental quantity findings are limited to eligibility determinations.	No error: Amendment 782 altered the Guidelines eligibility but did not authorize relitigation of the drug-quantity issue under § 3582(c)(2); district court permissibly denied reduction after § 3553(a) review.

United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, 859 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2016) (holds district court may not find drug quantity in excess of jury’s special-verdict finding)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new procedural rules generally not retroactive on collateral review)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (clarifies when a rule is ‘‘apparent to all reasonable jurists’’ for Teague purposes)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishes substantive from procedural new rules for retroactivity)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) is a limited resentencing mechanism, not a plenary resentencing)
United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2017) (district court may make supplemental quantity findings only when necessary to determine § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
Mitchell v. Prunty, 107 F.3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1997) (discusses binding effect of special jury findings on questions of guilt, distinguished in Pimentel-Lopez)