United States v. Quadale Coleman, 763 F.3d 706

Coleman pled guilty (2007) to possession with intent to distribute 121.989 grams of crack cocaine; statutory term 5–40 years.
District court designated Coleman a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior convictions (possession with intent to distribute and second‑degree sexual assault of a child), raising his Guidelines range from 140–175 months to 188–235 months.
Original amended judgment: 225 months imprisonment + 5 years supervised release.
After Begay and this circuit’s McDonald decision (holding Wisconsin second‑degree sexual assault of a child is not a "crime of violence" for § 4B1.1), Coleman moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence; the district court granted relief, recalculated the Guidelines (and applied subsequent drug‑guideline reductions) to 120–150 months, and resentenced Coleman to 120 months + 5 years supervised release.
The government appealed, arguing under Hawkins that an erroneous career‑offender classification is not cognizable on a § 2255 motion post‑Booker; the Seventh Circuit consolidated appeals and reversed the district court, vacating the resentencing and reinstating the original sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an erroneous career‑offender designation (Guidelines miscalculation) is cognizable in a § 2255 motion post‑Booker	Coleman: McDonald removed the basis for career‑offender status; timely § 2255 relief should be available and resentencing shows a lower sentence would have been imposed	Government: Hawkins controls; Guidelines errors that do not produce a miscarriage of justice are not cognizable on § 2255 after Booker	Court: Followed Hawkins — such Guidelines calculation errors are not cognizable on § 2255; reversed district court and reinstated original sentence
Whether distinguishing facts (resentencing later by different judge; district court’s statements) make Hawkins inapplicable	Coleman: Resentencing produced 120 months, so error had concrete effect; transcript shows court may have treated Guidelines as binding; motion timely	Government: Hawkins addressed timely motions and advisory Guidelines; later sentencing factors (prison conduct) explain lower resentencing and do not show original would have been lower	Court: Found Coleman’s distinctions unpersuasive; resentencing differences and judge’s statements do not overcome Hawkins

Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct.) (defines residual clause crime‑of‑violence as requiring purposeful, violent, aggressive conduct)
United States v. McDonald, 592 F.3d 808 (7th Cir.) (Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) second‑degree sexual assault of a child is not a crime of violence for § 4B1.1)
Hawkins v. United States, 706 F.3d 820 (7th Cir.) (post‑Booker, Guidelines calculation errors generally are not cognizable in § 2255 unless they produce a miscarriage of justice)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Sup. Ct.) (rendered federal Guidelines advisory)
Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (career‑offender errors are ordinary Guidelines questions not cognizable on § 2255)
Narvaez v. United States, 674 F.3d 621 (7th Cir.) (contrasting decision where district court treated Guidelines as mandatory, making the error cognizable)