UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. TUESDAY SHALON JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 16-6248 (D.C. No. 5:09- CR-00021-M-3) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON, and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Federal prisoner Tuesday Shal on Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we agree w ith the denial of her motion and remand for dismissal without pr ejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

* After examining the briefs and appella te 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, re s judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 30, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Ms. Johnson pled guilty to distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced her to 240 months in prison and concluded she was a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. In May 2016, Ms. Johnson filed a § 35 82(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines . The district court denied the motion because the amendment did not change Ms. Johnson’s Guidelines range. On appeal, Ms. Johnson’s sole argument is that her status as a career offender and her 240-month sentence is contrary to Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
In Johnson , the Supreme Court held that the residua l clause in the definition of “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague under the Due Proce ss Clause. 135 S. Ct. at 2557-59. We reject Ms. Johnson’s argument for tw o reasons. First, Ms. Johnson cannot bring her constitutional argument under § 3582(c)(2). Th e statute allows a sentence reduction only when “a [prisoner’s] sentencing range . . . has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 35 82(c)(2). It does not allow prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their sentence. United States v. Gay , 771 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Nothing in the limited c ongressional grant of authority to modify sentences provided by § 3582(c)(2) allows [a prisoner] to challenge the constitutionality- 3 - of his sentence.”). Thus, Ms. Johnson’s due proce ss argument under the Supreme
Court’s Johnson decision cannot support a sent ence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). 1 Second, Ms. Johnson’s argument fails on the merits. The Johnson decision affects only sentence enhancements under the residual cl ause of the ACCA based on crimes of violence. 135 S. Ct. at 2555. But Ms. J ohnson’s career offender designation was based on two prior convictions for drug distri bution—not crimes of violence. The Johnson decision is therefore inapplicab le to Ms. Johnson’s sentence. We remand the matter to the district cour t with instructions to vacate the order denying the motion and enter a new order dismissing Ms. Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. White , 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 2014) (stating “d ismissal for lack of jurisdic tion rather than denial on the merits is the appropriat e disposition of [the pris oner’s] § 3582(c)(2) motion”); United States v. Graham , 704 F.3d 1275, 1279 (10th Cir. 2013 ) (stating “dismissal rather than

1 The proper method to bring a constitutiona l attack on a sentence is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In September 2010, Ms. Jo hnson filed two § 2255 motions that the district court denied. No. 5:10-cv-01060-M, Dist. Ct. Doc. 1, 2; No. 5:09-cr-00021-M, Dist. Ct. Doc. 595, 598. In June 2016, Ms . Johnson filed a motion seeking authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 mo tion that we denied. No. 16-6184, Doc. 01019670661; No. 5:09-cr-00021- M, Dist. Ct. Doc. 887.- 4 - denial is the appropriate disposition” when sentence reduction is not authorized by § 3582(c)(2)). ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge