Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06157/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jessica Renee Chronister
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESSICA RENEE CHRONISTER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESSICA RENEE CHRONISTER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Nos. 16-6031 and 16-6079 

(D.C. Nos. 5:13-CR-00194-R-1 and 

5:13-CR-00033-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Nos. 16-6162, 16-6157 and 16-6159 

(D.C. Nos. 5:16-CV-00543-R, 

5:13-CR-00194-R-1, 5:13-CR-00034-R-1, 

and 5:16-CV-00541-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

October 7, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Jessica Renee Chronister pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, and to one count of conspiring to escape 

custody. Chronister has filed multiple appeals, which we have consolidated into two 

groups of cases. In the first (16-6031 and 16-6079), Chronister appeals the district 

court’s denial of her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

and Amendment 782. In the second (16-6157, 16-6159, and 16-6162), she requests a 

certificate of appealability (COA) for her claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, we affirm the district court orders, deny a COA, 

and deny in forma pauperis status. 

BACKGROUND 

In January 2013, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Arkansas 

indicted Jessica Renee Chronister on a charge of possessing, with intent to distribute, 

50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(B). In February 2013, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Oklahoma 

indicted Chronister on five other charges: maintaining a residence for the purpose of 

methamphetamine use and distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1); 

interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3); 

possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D); and possessing a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Also in 

February 2013, the grand jury in the Western District of Oklahoma indicted 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Chronister with conspiring to escape pretrial custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

751, 371. With Chronister’s consent, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 20, the district court in 

Arkansas transferred jurisdiction to the Western District of Oklahoma, where all 

three cases were consolidated and the government and Chronister entered into a 

written plea agreement. Chronister pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine charge 

from the Arkansas indictment, the possession-with-intent-to-distributemethamphetamine charge from the Oklahoma indictment, and the escape charge from 

the second Oklahoma indictment. Based on the stipulated methamphetamine weight 

in the plea agreement, the district court set Chronister’s base-offense level at 34. In 

addition, the district court applied three specific offense characteristics: two levels 

for possessing a firearm connected to the methamphetamine offense, under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1); two levels for maintaining a drug house, under U.S.S.G. § 

2D1.1(b)(12); and two levels for obstructing justice, under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. From 

the adjusted offense level of 40, the court reduced three levels for timely acceptance 

of responsibility, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. This left Chronister with a total offense 

level of 37. That offense level, combined with her Criminal History Category of III, 

produced an advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The 

district court adopted the PSR without changes, but varied downward to 168 months 

on the methamphetamine charges and to 60 concurrent months on the escape charge. 

 Despite an appeal waiver in her plea agreement, Chronister appealed. In 

United States v. Chronister, 573 F. App’x 816 (10th Cir. 2014), we enforced the 

appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. Chronister later filed a motion for a sentence 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 3 
4 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court 

denied the motion, and Chronister appealed. Chronister also filed a habeas motion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asking for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551 (2015). The district court denied the habeas motion. Chronister now asks for 

a COA. 

DISCUSSION 

1. Chronister’s sentence is too low for further reduction. 

We review de novo a district court’s interpretations of statutes or the 

sentencing guidelines. United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Even though Chronister received a sentence below the range that applies after 

Amendment 782, she still claims that the district court erred by denying her motion 

for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The PSR found Chronister responsible for 

113.9 grams of methamphetamine and 206.82 grams of actual methamphetamine, 

resulting in a marijuana equivalent of 4,364.2 kilograms and a base-offense level of 

34 under the 2013 Guidelines. In 2014, Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines 

retroactively lowered the base-offense level for that marijuana weight to level 32. See

United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230, 1234 (10th Cir. 2016). But federal courts have 

the power to lower an imposed sentence only when Congress authorizes them to do 

so. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010). For many applications, 

Congress has done so for defendants receiving a sentence based on a guideline range 

that the United States Sentencing Commission later lowers. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Congress has also mandated that any sentencing reductions under § 3582(c)(2) must 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 4 
5 

comply with the Commission’s relevant policy statements. Id. Although the 

Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 

220 (2005), the Commission’s policy statements for § 3582(c)(2) remain mandatory. 

Dillon, 560 U.S. at 828. One such policy statement prohibits § 3582(c)(2) reductions 

if the existing sentence is already lower than the amended guideline range.1

 U.S.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N 

2015). We have repeatedly affirmed this prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. 

Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833, 841 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Pedraza, 550 F.3d 

1218, 1220-22 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Because Chronister seeks a sentence below her post-amendment guideline 

range, the district court was right to deny her motion. Chronister argues that if the 

district court calculated her sentence today, her offense level would be 35 and yield a 

guideline range of 210 to 262 months. Her calculation is correct, but her actual 

sentence of 168 months is lower than even the bottom of that amended range. Thus, 

she is not entitled to § 3582(c)(2) relief. 

Chronister briefly raises a constitutional argument against the binding effect of 

the Commission’s policy statements concerning § 3582(c)(2). She cites a concern that 

Justice Stevens raised in his Dillon dissent: that the binding effect of the policy 

statements rested on “dubious constitutional footing” and might violate separation of 

powers by giving the Sentencing Commission a “barely constrained form of 

 1

 Except when the government makes a motion to reflect a defendant’s 

substantial assistance. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 5 
6 

lawmaking authority” over the federal courts. 560 U.S. at 833. Neither party in 

Dillon had briefed the issue, and the majority declined to address it. Id. at 826 n.5. 

On appeal, Chronister devotes just one paragraph to the separation-of-powers issue, 

neglecting it entirely in the district court. Her failure to raise the issue there forfeits 

her ability to do so here.2 See Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison, 758 F.3d 1198, 1203 

(10th Cir. 2014). 

2. Chronister is not entitled to a COA for her habeas motion.

Chronister raises no issue that entitles her to a COA on her habeas claim. 

Because Chronister is pro se in her § 2255 action, we construe her pleadings 

liberally, but we do not serve as her advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 

n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). A COA is available “only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requires 

the prisoner to show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, 

agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other 

words, the defendant must show that the district court’s resolution of the 

constitutional claim was either “debatable or wrong.” Id.

 2

 Even had Chronister not forfeited it, this circuit, and many others, have 

already considered the separation-of-powers objection and rejected it. United States 

v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287, 1292 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Dryden, 

563 F.3d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 2009)); see, e.g., United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 

1133 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Garcia, 655 F.3d 426, 434-5 (5th Cir. 2011); 

United States v. Erskine, 717 F.3d 131, 138-9 (2d Cir. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 6 
7 

Even when we review Chronister’s pleadings liberally, Chronister makes no 

such showing. She claims that she is due a sentence reduction because of the 

Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of the residual clause of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (ACCA) as impermissibly vague. Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 

2551 (2015). But Chronister was not sentenced under the ACCA, or under any 

sentencing provision implicating its residual clause. Therefore, no reasonable jurist 

could debate whether a different outcome was warranted. 

Chronister also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the § 2255 

action. To be granted in forma pauperis status, Chronister must show both an 

inability to pay the filing fees and good faith, as shown by “the existence of a 

reasoned, nonfrivolous argument....” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 

809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 

(10th Cir. 1991)). As discussed, Chronister’s appeal to Johnson is of no avail because 

she was not sentenced under the ACCA. In her effort to draw an analogy, Chronister 

cites United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2016). But Martinez is legally 

distinct from Chronister’s case because it involved career-offender sentencing, which 

involves a nearly identical residual clause as provided in the ACCA. Unlike 

Chronister’s claim, Martinez’s similar claim to that in Johnson presented a 

nonfrivolous argument for habeas relief. Thus, we deny in forma pauperis status. 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 7 
8 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court orders, deny a COA, and deny Chronister in forma 

pauperis status. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-6157 Document: 01019702077 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 8