United States v. Quary, 881 F.3d 820

Quary was convicted of multiple drug offenses and a §924(c) firearm offense; he received life imprisonment plus a consecutive 60-month term. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a first §2255 motion; the district court denied relief and this court denied a COA on that petition.
In August 2015 the district court granted a §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, reducing Quary’s life sentence to 360 months, yielding a total term of 420 months with the consecutive firearm term.
Nearly two years later Quary filed another §2255 motion, arguing the §3582(c)(2) reduction created a new judgment so his petition was not “second or successive.”
The district court concluded the §2255 motion was second or successive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Quary sought a COA to appeal that procedural ruling.
The Tenth Circuit denied a COA, holding jurists of reason would not find the district court’s procedural ruling debatable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction produces a new, intervening judgment for purposes of the second-or-successive rule	Quary: the §3582(c)(2) reduction created a new judgment, so his subsequent §2255 is not second or successive	The government/district court: §3582(c)(2) grants only a limited adjustment, not a new judgment; therefore the §2255 is second or successive and requires authorization	Held: §3582(c)(2) reductions do not constitute a new, intervening judgment; the district court’s procedural ruling was not debatable and COA denied

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (a new judgment intervening between habeas petitions prevents the later petition from being second or successive)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582(c)(2) authorizes only a limited adjustment, not a plenary resentencing)
United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing sentence-reduction proceedings from resentencings under Dillon)
United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 824 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2016) (district courts need only consider §3553(a) factors in §3582 proceedings; not required to address every argument)
White v. United States, 745 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (§3582(c)(2) reduction lowers the penalty but does not declare the original judgment invalid)
United States v. Jones, 796 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2015) (a §3582(c)(2) reduction is not a new sentence and does not resemble a full resentencing)
Sherrod v. United States, 858 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2017) (joining sister circuits in holding §3582(c)(2) reductions are not new, intervening judgments)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability when a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds)