United States v. Vann, 593 F. App'x 782

In 1997 Vann pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy; the PSR attributed 8,786.55 grams of cocaine base as his relevant conduct, producing a base offense level 38.
Vann did not object to the PSR’s drug-weight calculation at sentencing, on direct appeal, or in a § 2255 petition.
The Sentencing Commission later raised the crack thresholds (Amendments 706, 750, 759, 782) and made some amendments retroactive; Amendment 750 raised the level-38 floor to 8.4 kg of cocaine base.
In 2013 Vann moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction, arguing the PSR double-counted 469.6 g and that his relevant conduct was below 8.4 kg.
The district court rejected Vann’s recalculation (holding the PSR total was 8,786.55 g) and denied relief; Vann appealed claiming newly that the court never made an exact drug-quantity finding and asserting double-counting.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding no double-counting, that § 3582(c)(2) does not permit collateral attacks on original sentencing findings, and distinguishing United States v. Battle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3582(c)(2) permits Vann to relitigate alleged double-counting of drug weight from his original sentencing	Vann: PSR double-counted 469.6 g; his relevant conduct is below 8.4 kg so Amendment 750 should reduce his sentence	Government: PSR and sentencing court found 8,786.55 g; Vann never objected previously; § 3582(c)(2) is not a vehicle to attack original findings	Affirmed denial: § 3582(c)(2) only permits recalculation under amended guidelines, not collateral attacks on uncontested original findings; PSR did not double-count
Whether the district court’s original sentencing lacked a determinate drug-quantity finding requiring remand under Battle	Vann: District court didn’t make a specific quantity finding, so remand for factfinding is required	Government: District court made a determinate finding of 8,786.55 g and Vann conceded it previously	Held: Battle is distinguishable; court made a specific finding here, so no remand is required

United States v. Hook, 551 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (a defendant admits PSR facts by failing to object)
United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not provide jurisdiction to relitigate sentencing errors proper for § 2255)
United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing limits on supplemental factfinding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
United States v. Washington, 759 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2014) (disallowing § 3582(c)(2) as a vehicle for a new direct appeal of sentencing issues)