United States v. Wesley, 60 F.4th 1277 (10th Cir. 2023)

United States v. Wesley, 60 F.4th 1277 (10th Cir. 2023): The panel holds that a motion to reduce the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) cannot be used to get around the procedural and substantive statutory restraints imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 2255, such as timing, content of the motion and grounds on which one can bring additional motions. Wesley had already filed a § 2255 motion and a motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his latest § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, which the district court denied, he argued the prosecutor solicited false testimony about drug quantities; his choice to go to trial resulted in an unreasonably longer sentence compared to co-defendants who pleaded guilty; and his sentence was excessive compared to more culpable co-conspirators. The panel focused on the prosecutorial misconduct issue. It admitted that if true, the prosecutor’s conduct would violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause. But the panel said, the district court was correct in finding it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim. When a defendant attempts to raise “§ 2255-like claims outside of § 2255 . . . such a motion, however captioned or argued must be treated as a § 2255 motion.” 60 F.4th at 1288. Because this was Wesley’s second § 2255 motion, he had to ask the Tenth Circuit for permission to file a successive petition as well as satisfy the content requirements described in § 2255(h)(1). Since he failed to do either, the panel affirmed the district court’s decision. Update: the Tenth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with a dissent from Rossman.