UNITED STATES v. BROOKS (2020)

Mack Brooks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The district court's order also denied Brooks’ request for relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which was essentially a request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2018).

An order denying § 2255 relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this part of the appeal.

We have also reviewed the record regarding Brooks’ claim that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and find no reversible error in the district court's denial of relief. The record reveals that Brooks’ Guidelines range was the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2018); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(a) (2012), and application of Amendment 782 would not lower Brooks’ sentencing range. We therefore affirm this portion of Brooks’ appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.