In United States v. Hardiman, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-50422 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Mr. Hardiman's motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The motions were based on United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, 859 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2016), which held that a district court is not entitled to make a drug quantity finding in excess of that found by the jury in a special verdict.
Mr. Hardiman argued that the district court erred at sentencing when it made a drug quantity finding in excess of that found by the jury's special verdict.
The Ninth Circuit held that Pimentel-Lopez does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, the 2255 was properly denied.
Mr. Hardiman also filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. The Court held that his arguments about Pimentel-Lopez “were not affected by” Amendment 782 and therefore are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2).” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831.
