ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D. BROCK HORNBY, District Judge.
On June 12, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion. The petitioner filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on June 26, 2017. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, with the following additions, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
The petitioner states that he is not seeking retroactive application of Guideline Amendment 791 (a change in the financial loss tables favorable to the petitioner, but a change that the Sentencing Commission did not make retroactive so as to apply to this petitioner's sentence on June 26, 2014). Instead, he says that he is seeking a sentence reduction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (that the sentence "is otherwise subject to collateral attack"). He then states that his October 3, 2016 petition is timely under the portion of section 2255 that permits filing within one year of "the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). He says that his claim "is based on the
Although I understand the petitioner's frustration in being unable to use the amended loss tables and his belief that this outcome is inequitable, the Commission's new loss tables are not "facts supporting the claim" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). Instead, they are a change in the law, and only the Commission can give the new loss tables retroactive effect.
It is therefore