Tag Archives: 2241

Supreme Court Denies a Habeas Corpus, But With An Interesting Twist – Update for February 23, 2024

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WHERE THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A PROCEDURAL WAY

hobbsact200218Mike Bowe was convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, during which a gun was fired. So he was convicted as well of an 18 USC § 924(c) violation for the gun and received a sentence for an additional 10 years. After the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis back in 2019, Mike filed a motion for 11th Circuit permission to file a second § 2255 motion arguing that his predicate Hobbs Act attempt was not a crime of violence to which a § 924(c) could attach.

The Circuit turned him down, holding that Mike’s § 924(c) conviction was predicated in part on attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which remained a qualifying “crime of violence” (COV) under circuit precedent. But after that, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor in 2022, holding that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery was not COV, meaning that Mike had been right all along.

Being right doesn’t count for much in the world of habeas corpus. When Mike again asked for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, the 11th Circuit again turned him down, this time because 28 USC 2244(b)(1) – part of the statute governing the procedure for getting permission for a successive § 2255 motion – barred him from raising an issue already denied in a prior § 2255 motion. No matter that the Circuit had denied that claim under erroneous, pre-Taylor precedent. Mike did everything right; his § 924(c) conviction was plainly invalid; and, but for the misapplication of § 2244(b)(1), he would now be a free man.

Under 28 USC § 2244, a prisoner who is denied the right to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion is not allowed to appeal the denial any further. It’s over. But Mike had some canny lawyers, and they filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, a permissible but seldom used gambit. They pointed out that under 28 USC § 2244(b)(1), a federal court must dismiss a “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application.” 28 USC § 2244(b)(1). But state prisoners seek federal post-conviction relief under § 2254. Federal prisoners seek post-conviction relief under § 2255. Mike argued that three Circuits agreed that § 2244(b)(1) only affected state prisoners: Mike was free to bring his attempted Hobbs Act COV claim again, and that their position – not the view of the six circuits going the other way – should prevail.

The Government agreed with Mike.

habeas191211On Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied Mike’s § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. No surprise there: the Court hasn’t granted habeas to a federal prisoner in a long time. But what is noteworthy is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kavanaugh in calling for a grant of review to decide the split.

But how to do that? Because the Government agrees § 2244(b)(1) doesn’t apply to federal prisoners, if one of the three circuits agreeing with that position grant permission for a second-or-successive § 2255, there will never be a petition for certiorari filed by the Government. But if the petitioner is in one of the six circuits that say that § 2244(b)(1) applies to federal prisoners as well as state prisoners, permission to file a second-or-successive § 2255 in a case like Mike’s will never be granted, and the unfortunate prisoner will not be allowed to seek certiorari.

Justice Sotomayor admitted that “[t]here are considerable structural barriers to this Court’s ordinary review via certiorari petition.”

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the three Circuits that read § 2244(b)(1) to apply only to state prisoners. Before a federal prisoner can file a second or successive habeas corpus § 2255 motion, a court of appeals must certify it. When a federal prisoner files a second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue he has raised previously, neither the court of appeals nor the district court will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar. If the court of appeals certifies the motion, the district court will decide it on the merits.

A petition cannot reach the Supreme Court from the six Circuits that apply § 2244(b)(1) to both state and federal prisoners either. In those Circuits, the court of appeals will apply § 2244(b)(1)’s bar and deny certification to any second or successive § 2255 motion that raises an issue the prisoner has previously raised. Neither the Government nor the prisoner can seek review of that interpretation of § 2244(b)(1) from this Court, however, because the law bars petitions for certiorari stemming from “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application.”

sotomayor240223Mike tried to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to entertain original habeas petitions under § 2241(a). However, as Justice Sotomayor said, “The standard for this Court’s consideration of an original habeas petition is a demanding one. A petitioner must show both that ‘adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court” and “exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers. Whether Mike has met that demanding standard here is questionable,” the Justice wrote, “because it is not clear that, absent § 2244(b)(1)’s bar, the 11th Circuit would have certified his § 2255 motion.”

But the Circuit split needs to be settled, the Justice said, and thus, she “would welcome the invocation of this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction in a future case where the petitioner may have meritorious § 2255 claims. The Government also suggests that a court of appeals seeking clarity could certify the question to this Court.  In the meantime, in light of the demanding standard for this Court’s jurisdiction over original habeas petitions, I encourage the courts of appeals to reconsider this question en banc, where appropriate.”

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State law professor Doug Berman observed, “I still recall fondly when the Second Circuit in United States v. Penaranda, a full 20 years ago, certified three questions to SCOTUS concerning the application of Blakely to the federal sentencing system. I am not sure if there have been any other circuit certifications in the last two decades, but I am sure it is interesting to have two Justices flag this notable means of getting an issue on the SCOTUS docket”

Where there’s a will on the Supreme Court to hear an issue, there’s a way to get it there. Just not for Mike and not for today.

In re Bowe, Case No. 22-7871, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 988 (February 20, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS order list includes a notable statement in a habeas denial (February 20, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Leaves ‘Actually Innocent’ In Prison – Update for June 22, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

‘SAY IT AIN’T SO!’

aintso230622The Supreme Court today kicked a leg out from under federal prisoners who have been convicted of an offense based on an interpretation that later is abandoned by the Supreme Court, holding in Jones v. Hendrix that § 2255(e) – the so-called saving clause – does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the law’s restrictions on filing a second or successive § 2255 motion by filing a § 2241 habeas petition.  

Back in 1998, the Supreme Court seemed to endorse the use of a § 2241 petition where the strict limitations of the new Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) limited second § 2255 motions to cases where a recent Supreme Court constitutional holding or newly-discovered evidence would convince a jury that the petitioner was innocent. The problem was that many landmark criminal decisions by the Supreme Court – such as the holding that a defendant must know that he or she is in a class of people prohibited from possessing a gun (Rehaif v. United States, 2019) – do not resolve constitutional questions at all, but rather just interpret the meaning and scope of criminal statutes.

The 6-3 decision written by Justice Thomas observes that Congress created § 2255 “as a remedial vehicle by which federal prisoners could collaterally attack their sentences by motion in the sentencing court, rather than by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 in the district of confinement. The ‘sole purpose’ of § 2255 was to address the “serious administrative problems” created by district courts collaterally reviewing one another’s proceedings without access to needed evidence and “aggravated” by the concentration of federal prisoners in certain judicial districts that therefore faced “an inordinate number of habeas corpus actions.”

However, § 2255 contained a subsection – § 2255(e) – now known as the saving clause – which many courts (including the Supreme Court) had generally interpreted as letting prisoners file a § 2241 petition in cases where “the remedy by [2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [a prisoner’s] detention.”

innocent210504Today, SCOTUS held that just because a change in how a law is interpreted makes someone actually innocent of the offense he or she is doing time for, such a new interpretation does not help a prisoner who has already used up his or her § 2255 motion. The Court said:

Section 2255(e)’s saving clause does not authorize that end-run around AEDPA. The clause preserves recourse to § 2241 in cases where unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as for challenges to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence. But § 2255(h) specifies the two limited conditions in which federal prisoners may bring second or successive collateral attacks on their sentences. The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy § 2255(h) does not mean that the prisoner may bring the claim in a § 2241 petition.

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson wrote,

I am also deeply troubled by the constitutional implications of the nothing-to-see-here approach that the majority takes with respect to the incarceration of potential legal innocents. Apparently, legally innocent or not, Jones must just carry on in prison regardless, since (as the majority reads § 2255) no path exists for him to ask a federal judge to consider his innocence assertion. But forever slamming the courtroom doors to a possibly innocent person who has never had a meaningful opportunity to get a new and retroactively applicable claim for release reviewed on the merits raises serious constitutional concerns.

Jones v. Hendrix, Case No. 21-857 (opinion, June 22, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Explainer: When Federal Prisoners Can Get Relief Under Range, Dubin – Update for June 12, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

ASK THE PROFESSOR

explainer230612Last week, I reported on the 3rd Circuit’s en banc ruling that someone convicted of a nonviolent “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” (18 USC § 922(g)(1)) could not constitutionally be prohibited from possessing a gun or ammo. That report was followed by a dispatch on the Supreme Court’s decision last Thursday that dramatically limited the reach of the aggravated identity theft statute (18 USC § 1028A).

This was followed by the predictable questions from prisoners: “When can I use the Range decision to get my § 922(g) conviction vacated? And how about getting rid of my aggravated identity theft conviction under § 1028A?”

Very good questions, and inquiries for which the hopemongers who will write any motion for a federal prisoner in exchange for a modest fee – let’s call them what they are, hopemongers – have a ready answer. That answer usually starts with, “Pay me…”

Now let’s ask the professor.  Or, because he’s nowhere around, ask me…

professor230612To be sure, a lot of people could be affected by the decisions, provided there’s a procedural route to raise them. About 21% of federal prisoners have a § 922(g) conviction, while about 2% are doing time for aggravated ID theft. That’s a potential of about 35,000 felon-in-possession and 3,500 § 1028A defendants.

Range: Remember first that the Range decision is only binding in the 3rd Circuit. If your case isn’t from there, Range doesn’t help you. In fact, as I reported a week ago, the 8th Circuit just went the other way in its United States v. Jackson decision.

However, if your 1-year deadline for filing a § 2255 motion hasn’t expired, by all means challenge § 922(g) constitutionality in your motion. But if your time has expired, your options are limited. Under 28 USC § 2255(f)(3), you can file within a year of a new SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of a statute, but Range is not a Supreme Court case. If you have already lost your § 2255 motion, you have to get Court of Appeals permission to file another § 2255 and that standard likewise requires that the motivating decision be from the Supreme Court.

So how about a 28 USC § 2241 petition? We’ll know a lot more about § 2241s in a few weeks when SCOTUS decides Jones v Hendrix. For now, fitting a Range-type claim into the standards for bringing a § 2241 (under the § 2255(e) saving clause) will be tough.

dice161221For § 922(g) defendants, it may be worth a shot if your conviction came from a 3rd Circuit district court. For everyone else, it’s a waiting game…

ID Theft: For those beyond the § 2255 filing deadline, the traditional 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus will likely be available under the saving clause.

Because Dubin is a statutory interpretation and not a constitutional holding (despite Justice Gorsuch’s argument that it could easily have been), the route of filing a second or successive § 2255 (under the rules set up by § 2255(h)) is probably unavailable.

General Pro Tip: If you’re proceeding on § 2255 or § 2241, find competent help. Procedural questions are boring but vitally important to winning.

Ohio State University law prof Doug Berman observed last week that “offenders now looking to pursue what might be called “Dubin claims” could, of course, face procedural barriers of all sorts. But the still-open-ended sentence reduction authority of 3582 might be one ready means for at least some (over-sentenced) prisoners to secure relief…”

USSC, Quick Facts – Felon in Possession (June 2022)

USSC, Quick Facts – Sec 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft Offenses (July 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, How many of the many thousands convicted of federal aggravated identity theft might now have Dubin claims? (June 8, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Hear Saving Clause Argument Today – Update for November 1, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2255 SAVING CLAUSE ARGUMENT

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the reach of 28 USC § 2255(e), the so-called saving clause.

In Jones v. Hendrix, the high court will consider whether a prisoner may use a 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition to make a Rehaif claim – that he did not know he was subject to the proscription on possessing a gun or ammo – where he could have made the claim in a § 2255 motion years ago.

At least two circuits hold that where the issues could have been raised in the § 2255 motion – even though raising it would have been futile because Circuit precedent was totally against the argument – the saving clause will not let the prisoner file a § 2241 petition.

one-tripcar221101SCOTUSBlog said last week, “one suspects that the conservatives who joined the Rehaif majority… may nonetheless be open to concluding that prisoners like Jones cannot reap the benefit of their ruling. With rare exceptions, the court’s conservative majority has exalted finality over the fairness of individual proceedings – and did so long before the current 6-3 supermajority (as Justice Harry Blackmun noted in a dissent more than 30 years ago, “one searches the majority’s opinion in vain… for any mention of petitioner[]’s right to a criminal proceeding free from constitutional defect”). And though it will mean that defendants like Jones continue to serve time in prison for conduct that the court has said is not criminal, AEDPA’s bar on second or successive petitions provides a vehicle for that result. This car is good for just one ride.”

SCOTUSBlog, On the narrow road to challenge a federal conviction, when is a vehicle “inadequate”? (October 28, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Sure You’re Innocent, But WHY Are You Innocent? – Update for July 12, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

JUST SAYING IT DOESN’T MAKE IT SO

smile210712Sam Abram had a brief but prolific career as a bank robber, an occupation that Sam found to be more rewarding if he employed a smile and a gun rather than a smile alone. When the FBI nabbed him, Sam was convicted of the robberies and – for good measure – as a convicted felon in possession of a gun, a violation of 18 USC § 922(g).

Sam was convicted, lost on appeal, and then lost again on a post-conviction 28 USC § 2255 motion. Several years later, the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States that to be convicted of being a felon-in-possession, the defendant had to actually know he was a member of a class of people prohibited from possessing a gun. In Sam’s case, Rehaif said he had to know he was a convicted felon at the time he possessed the gun.

Generally, a § 2255 motion is the only way to mount a post-conviction challenge to an unlawful conviction or sentence, but 2255 motions are pretty much one-to-a-customer. If you have already filed one § 2255 motion, you must get permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second one, and getting permission is tough. Under 28 USC § 2244, you must either show you have discovered new evidence you couldn’t have feasibly found before – evidence that would have been a home run with the jury – or that the Supreme Court had handed down a constitutional ruling made retroactive on appellate review.

Rehaif was a reinterpretation of a statute that virtually all of the Federal circuits had gotten wrong, but because it was a decision of statutory construction rather than a decision that 18 USC § 922(g) was unconstitutional, Sam couldn’t get leave to file a new § 2255 motion.

savings180618But § 2255 has a “savings clause,” § 2255(e), which lets people in Sam’s position file a traditional 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition when a § 2255 motion “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” And a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective” if “(1) the § 2241 petition raises a claim that is based on a retroactively applicable decision; (2) the claim was previously foreclosed by circuit law; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.”

Sam filed a § 2241 petition, arguing that his § 922(g) conviction should be thrown out because his indictment never alleged he knew he had been convicted of a prior felony, and, by the way, he was actually innocent in that he didn’t know about his convicted-felon status. The district court shot down his § 2241 petition, and last week, the 5th Circuit agreed.

The Circuit said that Sam had to provide some evidence or argument supporting that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. That requirement is “particularly important in the Rehaif context,” the 5th said, because “[c]onvicted felons typically know they’re convicted felons” (a Kavanaugh quip from last month’s Supreme Court decision, Greer v. United States). The Circuit said, “if a defendant was in fact a felon, it will be difficult for him to carry the burden… of showing a reasonable probability that, but for the Rehaif error, the outcome of the district court proceedings would have been different.”

innocent210712All Sam did was assert he was actually innocent, which was nothing more than parroting the standard for a “savings clause” § 2241 petition. Where a prisoner just does that – without providing some evidence or argument supporting his claim that he was unaware of his relevant status – then, the Circuit ruled, “he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to proceed under § 2255(e)’s savings clause.” And thus, a substantive defect in the prisoner’s showing becomes a procedural defect as well.

Abram v. McConnell, Case No. 20-30199, 2021 US App. LEXIS 20174 (5th Cir. July 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

If Today’s Thursday, My Position Has Changed – Update for May 20, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DANCE WITH THE GIRL WHO BRUNG YOU

dancegirlbrung210520I used to practice in front of crusty old judge Walter J. Miller, who liked to warn attorneys that he expected them to “dance with the girl who brung you.” By that he meant that if you argued an evidentiary position in front of him, you were expected to maintain that position even if it became uncomfortable.

The government – which has a history of changing its position as the day, fashion, and its overarching goal of keeping people imprisoned may dictate – ran smack into that doctrine last week in the 7th Circuit. Dean Guenther was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 USC § 922(g)(1)) in the District of Minnesota. Because he had three prior Minnesota burglaries, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He appealed, and then tried a § 2255 motion. Both failed.

But some time after that, the 8th Circuit held that the Minnesota burglary statute was too broad to count as the kind of generic burglary that the ACCA intended to count against its predicate. Then, Johnson v. United States threw out the ACCA’s residual clause. Dean brought a 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus motion in the 7th Circuit (where he was imprisoned) under the § 2255(e) saving clause. The district court denied his motion.

miscarriage-of-justiceLast week, the 7th Circuit reversed. A § 2255 motion is normally the exclusive method to collaterally attack a federal sentence, but the § 2255(e) saving clause provides a limited exception, letting a prisoner seek § 2241 habeas relief in the district where he is confined if “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Generally, the saving clause works when the prisoner relies on an intervening statutory decision announcing a new, retroactive rule that could not have been invoked in his first § 2255 motion and the error is serious enough to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Dean’s motion fit everything except the question of whether his ACCA-enhanced sentence amounts to a miscarriage of justice. Since ruling that the Minnesota burglary was not an ACCA predicate, the 8th Circuit has reversed its position, but the 7th Circuit more recently ruled that the Minnesota burglary could not be used to qualify a defendant for the ACCA.

Dean and the government argued whether the ACCA sentence was a miscarriage should rely on 7th Circuit law (which said it was) or the 8th Circuit (which now says it might not be). The Circuit settled the issue easily, noting that in a prior case, the government argued that “the law of the circuit of confinement — this circuit — should control. That position, if accepted, meant no relief.” At the time, the 8th had held Minnesota burglary was not an ACCA predicate but the 7th had not ruled on the question. By the time that case reached the court of appeals, the tables had turned. The 8th had reversed itself, but the 7th had held that Minnesota burglary could not be counted under the ACCA.

flipflop170920In the prior case, of course, the government’s position was that the 7th Circuit’s interpretation should govern, because that had a more severe outcome for the defendant. In Dean’s case, however, the 8th Circuit’s interpretation would have hammered the defendant more. Bu the government’s logic, that one should apply.

The court did not state the obvious in such stark terms, but it did rather pointedly note that prior case, “we held the government to the position it took in the district court and applied the law of this circuit. We follow the same approach here.”

Thus, under 7th Circuit precedent, Dean’s Minnesota burglary convictions are not ACCA predicates (meaning he faces a maximum sentence of 10 years instead of a minimum sentence of 15 years).

Enjoy the dance, Mr. United States Attorney. She’s your date, after all.

Guenther v. Marske, Case No 17-3409, 2021 USApp LEXIS 14055 (7th Cir May 12, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Lousy Lawyering and Other Stories – Update for April 27, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

“DID I SAY FIVE YEARS? I MEANT FIVE DECADES…”

Four decisions of note last week:

stupidlawyr191202Oops, My Bad: Dave Mayhew was charged with white-collar fraud. The government offered him a plea deal that promised a maximum sentence of five years.

“C’mon, man,” his lawyer said. “That’s no deal. If we go to trial, five years is the worst we can do.” Dave, who paid big bucks for this professional advice, followed his attorney’s guidance and went to trial.

You can guess what happened. Dave lost, and he was sentenced to 27 years.

After appeals were over, Dave filed a habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255, arguing that his lawyer was ineffective for giving him such bad advice. The district court denied the petition, pointing out that Dave was told at his re-arraignment that he could get up to 55 years on all of the charges and the court – no one else – would decide the sentence. So Dave knew what he was getting into, the judge claimed, and that cured any prejudice he would have suffered from his lawyer’s idiocy.

Last week, the 4th Circuit reversed. The re-arraignment came only after Dave had rejected the plea deal. The Circuit admitted that in the usual lousy-advice-on-sentence-exposure case, the law is clear that if the defendant pleads guilty after a Rule 11 change-of-plea hearing, the court’s warning that only it would determine the sentence and that the maximum the defendant faces, “taken together, may well have been enough to cure… counsel’s misadvice. But there is a fundamental problem,” the 4th held, “with applying that principle here, and it has to do with timing: The court’s admonitions in this case came only after Dave already had rejected the government’s plea offer, and there is no indication — in the record or from the government on appeal — that the offer remained open at that point.”

Bait and Switch: Rebecca Stampe made a deal on her drug case, agreeing to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea locking her sentence at 168 months. An 11(c)(1)(C) plea sets a particular sentence or sentence range, with the court’s role limited to honoring the sentence deal or rejecting the guilty plea.

Deal170216Becky’s deal came with a government promise that if she testified against her co-defendant, she might get a substantial-cooperation sentence reduction under USSG § 5K1.1. But after she made the plea deal, the government dismissed the case against her co-defendant because of some unspecified misconduct by the informant (which presumedly made the informant’s testimony worthless).

Becky demanded information about the misconduct under Brady v Maryland, arguing that it was material to her guilt as well. She also moved to withdraw from her plea agreement (but not her guilty plea), figuring she’d do better with an open plea that let the court sentence her than she would with a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.

Last week, the 6th Circuit shot her down. The Circuit ruled that the evidence could not possibly be material to Becky’s defense, because she had already pled guilty, so there was no defense left to make. As for the plea agreement, the Circuit said, “While we do not doubt that Stampe sincerely believed that she might avoid some prison time because of her putative cooperation in her co-defendant’s case, the plea agreement contemplated but did not require that possibility. So contrary to her assertion on appeal, it was not the ‘principal purpose’ of the agreement. The main purpose was the exchange of her plea for the government dropping the other charge against her and agreeing to a 168-month sentence.”

mathisEnd Run: John Ham filed a 28 USC § 2241 habeas petition claiming that Mathis v United States – a Supreme court decision that dictated how a sentencing court should apply the “categorical approach” in deciding whether a prior crime was a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act – required that he be resentenced to a lot less time.

John figured that the 4th Circuit’s United States v. Wheeler decision authorized the district court to address his § 2241 petition on the merits. The district court disagreed, and Jim appealed.

Wheeler adopted a four-part test for using § 2241 petitions to attack a defective sentence where a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective.” One of those tests is that a petitioner must show a retroactive change in substantive law that happened after the direct appeal and first § 2255 motion.

John claimed that Mathis satisfies that requirement, changing “well-settled substantive law” about how a sentencing court should apply the categorical approach. Last week, the 4th Circuit disagreed.

“Mathis itself made clear that it was not changing, but rather clarifying, the law,” the 4th held. “The categorical approach has always required a look at the elements of an offense, not the facts underlying it… Indeed, Mathis merely repeated the ‘simple point’ that served as ‘a mantra’ in its ACCA decisions: ‘a sentencing judge may look only to the elements of the offense, not to the facts of the defendant’s conduct’.”

abandoned210427jpgSee You Around, Chump: Finally, in the 8th Circuit, Charles Ahumada filed a § 2255 motion arguing his attorney abandoned him by failing to file a petition for rehearing on his direct appeal. Not so, the Circuit said. In order to make a 6th Amendment ineffective assistance, a defendant first has to have a constitutional right to counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel on a discretionary appeal, and a petition for rehearing is exactly that.

Chuck admitted as much, but argued that the Circuit’s Criminal Justice Act plan requiring counsel to file non-frivolous appeals gave him a due process right to effective counsel. “Even assuming there was a breach of the statute, the CJA,” the 8th said, “it does not give rise to a claim for ineffective representation of counsel.”

United States v. Mayhew, Case No 19-6560, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11248 (4th Cir., April 19, 2021)

United States v. Stampe, Case No 19-6293, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11459 (6th Cir., April 20, 2021)

Ham v. Breckon, Case No 20-6972, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11493 (4th Cir., April 20, 2021)

Ahumada v. United States, Case No 19-3632, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11861 (8th Cir., April 22, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Orgeterix Mortuus Est… But I Had Help – Update for December 17, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

4th CIRCUIT EXTENDS BURRAGE HOLDING TO DRUG GUIDELINES

Several years ago… OK, several decades ago, I studied Latin in high school under the watchful eye of my sainted Latin teacher, Emily Bernges. When she had us reading Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War, my fellow students and I were taken by Julius’s matter-of-fact report on the denouement of Orgeterix, the Helvetian (think “Swiss”) aristocrat. Orgeterix conspired to take over France, but was hauled off to trial for his nefarious plans, only to be sprung later by 10,000 of his closest friends. After being released, he mysteriously departed this mortal coil. Suicide? Murder? Death by misadventure? No one knows.

orgeterix201217Julius Caesar covered it in the Commentaries with a terse observation: Orgeterix mortuus est. That is to say, “Orgeterix died.”

The drug penalty statute, 21 USC § 841(b), specifies a sentencing enhancement when “death or serious bodily injury results from the use of” the drugs distributed by a defendant. The enhancement is steep: subsection (1)(C), for example, contains no mandatory minimum for distributing small amounts of drug, but “if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance” the minimum is 20 years.

Of course, life is seldom neat, and neither is death. If a defendant hands Abbie Abuser a gram of fentanyl, for example (500 time the lethal dose), and she promptly swallows it all, the grounds for the enhancement are pretty clear. But usually, the victim’s blood turns out to be a toxic waste dump of multiple substances, only one of which came from the defendant. In that case, did “death or serious bodily injury result” from the defendant’s drugs so as to justify the enhanced sentence?

In 2014, the Supreme Court said “no” in Burrage v. United States. Instead, the Court said, when the use of a drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, that defendant cannot be liable for penalty enhancement under 21 USC 841(b)(1) unless such use is a “but-for” cause of the death or injury. Like Orgeterix, the victim mortuus est, but if the mortuus would not have happened but for the defendant’s drugs, no enhancement is appropriate.

sauce170307Burrage settled the issue for the statute. But the sentencing guidelines contain a similar enhancement. We know from Beckles v. United States that it would be a mistake to assume that what’s sauce for the statutory goose is likewise sauce for the Guidelines gander. That is, just because a decision modifies how a statute is applied does not mean that the decision will govern how the Guidelines are interpreted.

Bill Young was convicted of a drug trafficking offense. Because someone he sold drugs to died of an overdose, he received a Guidelines 2D1.1(a)(1) enhancement because death resulted from drugs he sold, setting his Guidelines Base Offense Level at 43.

Burrage only dealt with the 841(b) statute, not the Guidelines. Nevertheless, Bill filed a 2241 habeas corpus action, arguing Burrage was retroactive and the case applied to the Guidelines as well as 21 USC 841(b)(1). He claimed the victim mortuus est, and non one could say his product was the independent cause of death. Last week, the 4th Circuit agreed that Burrage applies to the Guidelines, and ordered the 2241 petition heard.

death200330“For starters,” the Court said, “the language of USSG 2D1.1 significantly parallels the language of 841(b)(1) that Burrage interpreted and that contains the statutory penalty for Young’s charged offense… Because of that parallel language, other courts have recognized that the Guidelines and statute mirror each other in several key respects… We see no reason to treat the Guidelines differently from the statute, especially since they were mandatory when applied to Young.”

Bill was able to take advantage of the 4th Circuit’s Wheeler decision, which permitted him to use a 2241 petition to claim actual innocence of a sentence, not just of a conviction.

Young v Antonelli, Case No 19-7176, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38662 (4th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

“If At First You Don’t Succeed…” Doesn’t Work in Habeas Corpus – Update for October 28, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WHEN TOO MUCH IS MORE THAN ENOUGH

oneshot201029You pretty much only get one shot trying to convince your judge you were wrongly convicted in a habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255 (except for a few circumstances not relevant here). But how about the “saving clause” in § 2255(e) which lets an inmate use another route to file habeas corpus when a § 2255 petition “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention?”

Roberto Beras, convicted of using his check cashing/money transfer business to launder millions in drug proceeds, figured § 2255(e) meant he could file a § 2241 petition for habeas corpus if the § 2255 no longer worked (because it had already been filed and denied in the 2nd Circuit, and two requests to file successive § 2255s denied as well).

Roberto figured the Supreme Court’s 2008 Cuellar v. United States decision was his ticket home. So even while his § 2255 motion was pending in New York, Roberto was filing § 2241 habeas corpus motions wherever he happened to be. In two petitions filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, he claimed he was innocent under the Cuellar statutory interpretation decision, but the Northern District court disagreed, finding Roberto would have been found guilty even under Cuellar. When Roberto was transferred to a facility in the Western District of Louisiana, he filed the same claim again.

Last week, the 5th Circuit threw out Roberto’s latest § 2241 petition as an “abuse of the writ.”

The § 2255(e) “saving clause” permits an inmate to file a 28 USC § 2241 petition based on new interpretations of federal statutes – like Cuellar – when the claim was previously “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when it should have been raised” and when the “retroactively applicable decision establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” But, the Circuit said, that wasn’t the issue here. Instead, Roberto’s § 2241 should be dismissed as “an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus.”

2255(e)filings201029“Abuse of the writ” is a common-law based “body of equitable principles informed and controlled by historical usage, statutory developments, and judicial decisions.” Under 28 USC § 2244(a), the Circuit held, it can dismiss a successive habeas application as an “abuse of the writ” where the movant raises a claim in a subsequent petition that either was raised or could have been raised in an earlier petition.

The 5th said Roberto “has filed claims in at least four circuits and for nearly twenty years. To allow him to repeat the same claim – heard and denied by another circuit – would be to condone forum-shopping… Perpetual disrespect for the finality of convictions disparages the entire criminal justice system.”

Beras v. Johnson, Case No. 18-30684, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33058 (5th Cir Oct 20, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Correcting Your Sentence After Courts Admit a Mistake Gets Harder – Update for January 14, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

6TH CIRCUIT REFUSES § 2241 MOTION ON CIRCUIT SENTENCING STATUTE REINTERPRETATIONS

habeasB191211Since the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, post-conviction habeas corpus motions brought under 28 USC § 2255 have pretty much been one-to-a-customer. A prisoner is entitled to file a second § 2255 motion only where the Supreme Court had issued a constitutional ruling made retroactive (such as 2015’s Johnson v. United States) or where prisoners discover new compelling evidence that they are actually innocent of the offense of conviction.

But § 2255 has a “savings” clause in subsection (e), that lets a prisoner file a classic habeas corpus action under 28 USC § 2241 if the  § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” The Supreme Court held in the 1997 Bousley v. United States decision that if there is a change in statutory interpretation (but not a constitutional violation) that makes a prisoner actually innocent of the crime of conviction, the § 2255(e) “savings” clause applies.

magnacarta200116

For those who came in late: Section 2241 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code establishes procedures for petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. It establishes the rules for exercising that ancient (think Magna Carta) right to petition the courts whenever one is being detained (jailed or imprisoned) unconstitutionally or contrary to law. It may be the most valuable right anyone has anywhere (that’s why they call it “the Great Writ“).

But when the writ of habeas corpus is aimed not at the jailer, but instead at the constitutionality of the federal court proceeding that got you to prison in the first place, Congress wrote a separate statute – 28 USC § 2255 – to govern those proceedings. A third section, 28 USC § 2254, addresses procedures for state prisoners who have exhausted their habeas rights in state court, and have to head off to federal court.

manyguns190423Now, back to the live action… Just about every federal prisoner files his or her one-and-only § 2255 motion. You have a year from the time your conviction is final, so it is very much a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. But what if (as often happens) you discover something new that could get you released, but the discovery comes after the year passes? Take our hypothetical defendant, Smith N. Wesson. Unsurprisingly, Smith was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 USC § 922(g), despite the fact that he did not know that his prior state conviction was a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. A felony made him ineligible to possess a gun, a misdemeanor did not. Smith’s lack of knowledge that he was breaking the law made no difference: he would have nonetheless have been guilty. Up until last June, it was not necessary that Smith know he was prohibited from possessing a gun. He only had to know that thing he was carrying was a gun rather than, say, a toaster. And if our man Smith knew anything, he knew guns.

But in June 2019, the Supreme Court threw Smith a bone. It held in Rehaif v. United States that a § 922(g) defendant had to know that he or she was in a class of people prohibited from possessing firearms. After Rehaif, Smith would not be guilty of the crime.

Rehaif was not a decision on the constitutionality of 18 USC § 922(g). Instead, it was just an interpretation of what the statute said. What it had always said, the Supremes said, but none of the courts of appeal had ever under understood that.

gunknot181009But Rehaif put Smith in a quandary: although he was as innocent as a lamb, Smith had already used his § 2255 rights several years before, and he thus could not file a second § 2255 unless he met the narrow criteria. And he definitely did not. But he could file a § 2241 petition, because the § 2255(e) savings clause applies.

Most circuits (not the 10th and 11th) hold that even where a later Supreme Court decision affects only a prisoner’s sentence, not just the prisoner’s conviction, he or she may file a § 2241 petition to get relief. The 4th Circuit has gone further: in the 2018 United States v Wheeler decision, the 4th said that prisoners barred from filing a second § 2255 motion may seek habeas relief under 28 USC § 2241 based on new statutory interpretation decisions from circuit courts of appeal, not just the Supreme Court.

All of which brings us to today’s case. Ramon Hueros got a drug distribution sentence under 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A), the mandatory minimum time for which was doubled from 10 to 20 years because he had been previously convicted of two state drug convictions. After a 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit decision held those prior state convictions were not really felonies at all (which meant Ramon should never have gotten a 240-month minimum federal sentence), he filed for relief. He had previously filed and lost a § 2255 motion, so he filed a § 2241 petition for habeas corpus under the “savings” clause.

limitone170912Last week, the 6th Circuit ruled 2-1 that Ramon was not entitled to use the § 2255(e) savings clause (and thus, file a 2241 motion) based on a new court of appeals decision changing statutory interpretation. “Although the 4th Circuit has blessed an identical request [in the 2018 decision, United States v. Wheeler], we must respectfully decline. Among our reasons: Congress allowed prisoners to file a second § 2255 motion only if the Supreme Court adopts a new rule of constitutional law… We would write this limit out of the statute if we held that new rules from the circuit courts (whether of statutory or constitutional law) could render 2255 inadequate or ineffective and trigger the right to a second round of litigation under 2241.”

The Circuit said a § 2255 remedy is not ineffective unless a prisoner identifies a new Supreme Court decision – not just a circuit court decision – reinterpreting a statute. The AEDPA history, as well as the practical effects of holding otherwise – such as gutting the efficacy of the § 2255(f) time requirements – suggest that circuit court statutory rulings should not fall under the § 2255(e) savings clause.

This may finally be the savings clause decision that makes it to the Supreme Court, where the Court will impose national uniformity on use of the clause to bring 2241 challenges where statutes are reinterpreted to make what was once illegal now legal.

Hueso v. Barnhart, 2020 U.S.App. LEXIS 618 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root