Opinion ID: 757333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Guideline Amendment

Text: 10 Mr. Buggs next argues that, due to an intervening change in the Sentencing Guidelines after his direct appeal, 2 the district court abused its discretion in failing to remand his case for resentencing. According to Mr. Buggs, the district court should not have included in the sentencing calculation the four ounces of heroin that he negotiated to deliver but did not actually produce. 3 11 A certificate of appealability is not permitted unless the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Even before the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we held that errors in the implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines are generally not cognizable in a collateral attack. Scott v. United States, 997 F.2d 340, 341-43 (7th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1994) (A district court's technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2255.). Here, Mr. Buggs argues that a subsequent amendment to the guidelines after his direct appeal makes the inclusion of the negotiated amount of heroin improper. This argument raises no constitutional issue; the issuance of a certificate of appealability was therefore inappropriate.