Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of 794 Amendment claim brought in § 2255 case because "Section 2255 is not a basis for relief for guideline errors, and there was no reason for the district judge to construe the papers as a motion to reduce under § 3582(c) because Amendment 794 is not retroactive and did not reduce a guideline. It simply clarified when to apply a guideline that lowers a range."
Summary of this case from Snow v. United StatesOpinion
No. 17-1544
08-22-2017
MODESTO OZUNA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.
Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:16-cv-9822 John W. Darrah, Judge.
ORDER
Modesto Ozuna has filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which we construe as an application for a certificate of appealability. This court has reviewed the final order of the district court and the record on appeal. We find no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Section 2255 is not a basis for relief for guideline errors, and there was no reason for the district judge to construe the papers as a motion to reduce under § 3582(c) because Amendment 794 is not retroactive and did not reduce a guideline. It simply clarified when to apply a guideline that lowers a range.
Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Ozuna's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.