Tag Archives: 2255

Going Back to the Well – Update for September 24, 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.

PROCEDURAL BOOTSTRAPPING

well210924Back to the Well Once Too Often: Federal prisoners who lose their 28 USC § 2255 motions sometimes resort to filing motions to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), as a clever means of getting around seeking permission for a second or successive § 2255 under 28 USC § 2244. It seldom works.

A few fun facts: First, although a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 challenges a criminal conviction or sentence, the § 2255 proceeding itself is considered to be a civil action. That is how a movant even has the option to employ Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or any other Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for that matter. Second, Rule 60(b) – which governs motions to set aside the judgment – is usable after a final judgment is rendered, although that some time constraints and designated bases for invoking the Rule that are beyond today’s discussion. Third, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – known as the AEDPA – puts severe restrictions on prisoners bringing more than a single § 2255 motion without meeting some pretty high standards (a new retroactive rule of constitutional law or some killer new evidence) and getting advance approval from a United States Court of Appeals under 28 USC § 2244. These restrictions can run headlong into a Rule 60(b) motion.

Desmond Rouse and several co-defendants were convicted based on what they called “outdated, false, misleading, and inaccurate” forensic medical evidence, testimony that had since been recanted, and juror racism. Having failed to win their § 2255 motions, they filed a motion to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing that a “new rule” announced in Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado would now let them “investigate whether their convictions were based upon overt [juror] racism,” and the witness recantations showed they were actually innocent.

Last week, the 8th Circuit rejected the Rule 60(b) motion as a second-or-successive § 2255 motion.

aedpa210504The Circuit held that newly discovered evidence in support of a claim previously denied and a subsequent change in substantive law “fall squarely within the class of Rule 60(b) claims to which the Supreme Court applied § 2244(b) restrictions in Gonzalez v. Crosby back in 2005. The requirement in § 2244(b)(3) that courts of appeals first certify compliance with § 2244(b)(2) before a district court can accept a motion for second or successive relief applies to Rule 60(b)(6) motions that include second or successive claims. Our prior denial of authorization did not sanction Appellants’ repackaging of their claims in Rule 60(b)(6) motions to the district court. The motions are improper attempts to circumvent the procedural requirements of AEDPA.”

Back to the Well is Just Fine: In the 7th Circuit, however, a prisoner who filed reconsideration on denial of his First Step Act Section 404 motion chalked up a procedural win. Within the 14 days allowed for filing a notice of appeal after his district court denied him a sentence reduction, William Hible filed a motion asking the district judge to reconsider his denial. The judge denied the motion, and Bill filed his notice of appeal, again within 14 days of the denial. The government argued the notice was late, because a motion for reconsideration doesn’t stop the appeal deadline from running.

Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with Bill. The 7th observed that while the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lack any parallel to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, the Supreme Court “has held repeatedly that motions to reconsider in criminal cases extend the time for appeal. But under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, only Criminal Rules 35 and 36 offer any prospect of modification by the district judge. Rule 36 is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(5), a motion under Rule 35 does not affect the time for appeal.

 timewaits210924The government argued these rules govern sentence reduction proceedings, but the 7th disagreed. The Circuit said the First Step Act authorizes reduction of a sentence long after the time allowed by Rule 35. Thus, “the First Step Act’s authorization to reduce a prisoner’s sentence is external to Rule 35,” so the provision in Rule 4(b)(5) about the effect of Rule 35 motions does not apply here. A reconsideration motion in a 404 proceeding thus stops the running of the time to appeal, and Hible’s notice of appeal was timely.

Rouse v. United States, Case No. 20-2007, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27795 (8th Cir., September 16, 2021)

United States v. Hible, Case No. 20-1824, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27548 (7th Cir., September 14, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Too Early, Too Late – Update for September 15, 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.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

timewaits200325Two decisions last week remind us that timing is key.

Julio Cardenas filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion arguing that his defense attorney had rendered ineffective assistance to him. In fact, he had no idea how ineffective counsel had been (and was continuing to be).

Julio lost his direct appeal, and the Supreme Court then denied certiorari. Julio filed for Supreme Court rehearing, and that was denied, too.

Fast forward a year. Julio’s attorney filed his § 2255 motion, but did so a year after denial of Supreme Court rehearing. But courts have uniformly held that the deadline for filing a § 2255 motion is really a year after the Supreme Court first denies certiorari, not a year after the later date when it denies rehearing whether its earlier denial of cert was correct. As a result, Julio’s § 2255 was filed 47 days past the date it was due under 28 USC § 2255(f)(1).

Julio asked his district court to accept it anyway under a doctrine called equitable tolling. A prisoner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. Equitable tolling is warranted only in “rare and exceptional circumstances,” as the courts like to say.

Last week, the 5th Circuit said Julio didn’t have such circumstances here. The 5th said Julio’s counsel simply messed up. His lawyer admitted he now knew that a “petition for rehearing on a denial of certiorari on direct appeal does not toll the AEDPA time limit. All I can say in my defense is the concept is so counterintuitive that it did not even occur to me to check or research the question.”

The Circuit said Julio’s lawyer’s mistake was “precisely the kind of case that does not warrant equitable tolling…”

worm210913Timing also played a role in a second 5th Circuit decision last week. Leondus Garrigan filed an 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release motion, but he sent his request to the warden two weeks after filing the motion in district court. After his court denied the compassionate release motion, Leo filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that his administrative remedies were now exhausted, and the court could rule on the motion.

The district court denied the reconsideration, and last week, the 5th agreed: 

The primary basis on which Lionel justified reconsideration,” the Circuit ruled, “was a purported ‘manifest error of law.’ But there was no legal error in the underlying judgment. Because he filed his motion in the district court before the warden received his request, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. To be sure, after Garrigan’s first motion was denied without prejudice, he successfully exhausted. But it is irrelevant that he achieved exhaustion in the intervening period between the denial and his motion for reconsideration – he was required to properly exhaust before filing the motion. The district court did not have discretion to excuse his failure to do so.

United States v. Garrett, Case No 20-61083, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27214 (5th Cir., Sept. 9, 2021)

United States v. Cardenas, Case No 18-40790, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26910 (5th Cir., Sept. 7, 2021)

– 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

Procedure Talks, Substance Walks – Update for June 1, 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.

DOES INNOCENCE MATTER? NOT MUCH.

I had a recent email exchange with a guy who, years after his conviction, believes he has the golden bullet to convince his judge that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. When I pointed out he had no procedural route for raising the argument, given that he’s known about the issue for years, he responded that all he has to do is convince the judge of the righteousness of his claim, and the procedure will take care of itself.

innocent210504But procedure never takes care of itself. That is to say, procedure rules over substance. Years ago, Professor Henry J. Friendly complained that habeas corpus procedure had gotten so hidebound that a petitioner’s claim that he or she was actually innocent simply didn’t matter. The title of the law review article said it all: Is Innocence Irrelevant: Collateral Attack on Criminal Judgments. Even after Friendly’s now-famous 1970 article, the Supreme Court was unable to untether actual innocence from procedure: in Herrera v. Collins, it held that “a claim of ‘actual innocence’ is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.  In other words, a prisoner who is actually innocent must show a constitutional violation to obtain relief.  As dissenting Justice Blackmun complained, the only principle this position espouses is “the principle that habeas relief should be denied whenever possible.”

Two cases this week reminded the defendants that the righteousness of their causes paled in significance next to the “angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin” arguments over procedure. In an 11th Circuit case, Sandchase Cody (we’ll call him “Sandy”) initially won his § 2255 motion, having proven to the sentencing court that some of his prior state convictions should not count as Armed Career Criminal Act predicates.

But his victory turned to ashes at resentencing. Initially, Sandy had been sentenced to 294 months for drug distribution and a concurrent 294 months for the ACCA charge. But instead of resentencing on both counts, the judge merely cut his ACCA count to 120 months – the statutory max without the ACCA – keeping the 294 months on the drug count.

angels170726“Unfair!” Sandy cried, apparently laboring under the misappreciation that fairness actually mattered. He appealed, arguing he should have been resentenced on both counts. But because the appeal only challenged the resentencing, not his favorable § 2255 decision, Sandy did not ask for a certificate of appealability (COA). He argued to the 11th Circuit that because he was appealing the new sentence – and not the § 2255 decision vacating the prior sentence – a COA was not necessary.

Background: Under 28 USC § 2253, a prisoner may not appeal a “final order in a proceeding under § 2255” unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable judges could debate whether the prisoner’s claim has merit. The intent of the COA procedure is to reduce frivolous appeals, just another way that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has strangled habeas corpus.

Last week, the 11th Circuit dismissed Sandy’s appeal, holding that the COA requirement applies “not only to an appeal from the final order in a proceeding under section 2255 but also to an appeal from an amended criminal judgment, to the extent it raises section 2255 issues.” By contrast, the Circuit said, direct appeal matters that arise after the § 2255 proceeding — for example, an argument that the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines at a prisoner’s resentencing — do not require a COA. But Sandy complained in his appeal that § 2255 required he get a complete resentencing, not just a resentencing on one count. That was an argument, the 11th said, over the remedies authorized by § 2255. Thus, it was a § 2255 appeal, and it required a COA.

It seems a trifling point, but procedure prevented his argument from being heard.

In the 6th Circuit, on the other hand, the appeals court ruled that a piece of arcane procedure worked for Edres Montgomery. Edres got resentenced under First Step § 404, the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act. But at resentencing, everyone – including Edres’s lawyer – assumed Edres’s Criminal History range was VI (that’s “6” for the Latin-challenged among us).

But it was only a V (that’s a “5”), Edres discovered afterward, so he appealed. The government argued Edres waived his right to appeal it by not objecting at sentencing. This gave the 6th a chance to expound on waiver, forfeiture, and invited error.

A “defendant can only waive a right that he knows of and actively abandons,” the 6th said. When a claim is waived, it is unappealable. “Forfeiture is at the other end of the spectrum… the passive failure to make a timely assertion of a right.” If a defendant forfeits a claim, “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) allows us to consider such unpreserved arguments for plain error.”

errorA160425In the middle is “invited error”, where the defendant contributes in some way to the district court’s error without intentionally relinquishing his rights. Here, Edres invited the error when his own lawyer agreed Edres’s Criminal History was VI. This left Edres “more responsible for the district court’s error than when he merely forfeits an argument, but he had not made the conscious choice to waive the argument.” Thus the appeals court said, “the consequences fall in between those for forfeiture and waiver… [and while] we do not review invited errors as a matter of course, but we are also not foreclosed from reviewing them; instead, we review for plain error when “the interests of justice demand” it.

The Court said that under a Rule 52 “plain error” analysis, the mistake should be corrected.

United States v. Cody, Case No. 19-11915, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16019 (11th Cir. May 28, 2021)

United States v. Montgomery, Case No. 20-1201, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. May 24, 2021)
– Thomas L. Root

That ‘Teague’ Thing? We Were Just Kidding – Update for May 25, 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.

BAD (BUT UNSURPRISING) NEWS ON RETROACTIVITY

sadprison210525How would you like to be convicted of a federal crime with a long sentence, only to have the Supreme Court hold well after the fact that something about your trial was unconstitutional? How would you like that?

That’s an easy one. You would not like to be convicted.  Period. Whether it was done constitutionally or not. No one wants to be convicted. So that was a stupid question.

But over 50,000 people are convicted of federal crimes every year. And they don’t like it, either. They like it even less if, say, if the government grabbed your cellphone location data without a warrant, or you were convicted by a jury vote of 9-2, or the judge jacked up your statutory minimum because he thought your revolver was really a machine gun.

All of those were deemed to be unconstitutional.  The cellphone location data? Carpenter v. United States, 2018. Less-than-unanimous jury? Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020. A nonjury finding jacking your mandatory minimum? Alleyne v. United States, 2013.

The problem is that if your conviction was final before these decisions established that you were constitutionally wronged, you have no right to ask the court for a do-over. That is not unless the decisions are declared to be retroactive, which means that cases like yours that are already final may reopen the issues on collateral review (habeas corpus).

watershed210525Thirty-two years ago, the Supreme Court explained in Teague v. Lane that decisions holding substantive criminal laws to be unconstitutional (such as the Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause in Johnson v. United States) are always retroactive to cases on § 2255 review. However, Teague held, a case in which a criminal procedure was declared unconstitutional (like searches in Carpenter or a less-than-unanimous jury in Ramos) is only retroactive on habeas review only if the new rule was “watershed,” “bedrock” or “essential.”

So what kind of ruling would be “watershed?” Prisoners and defense attorneys have looked for that elusive “watershed” decision for three decades without success. Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case asking whether last year’s Ramos rule on unanimous juries had to be unanimous (a holding which affected Louisiana and Oregon only) was retroactive. The Court ruled 6-3 that Ramos was not a “watershed” rule. More important, the Court gave up pretending that anything could ever be a “watershed” rule.

“This Court has repeatedly stated that a decision announcing a new rule of criminal procedure ordinarily does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. “Indeed, in the 32 years since Teague underscored that principle, this Court has announced many important new rules of criminal procedure. But the Court has not applied any of those new rules retroactively on federal collateral review… And for decades before Teague, the Court also regularly declined to apply new rules retroactively, including on federal collateral review… At this point, some 32 years after Teague, we think the only candid answer is that… no new rules of criminal procedure can satisfy the watershed exception. We cannot responsibly continue to suggest otherwise to litigants and courts… It is time — probably long past time — to make explicit what has become increasingly apparent to bench and bar over the last 32 years: New procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The watershed exception is moribund.”

squarepeg210525So prisoners, at last, can give up trying to pound round constitutional procedure decisions into Teague’s square holes. The Supreme Court has said what a lot of us suspected ever since Apprendi was declared non-retroactive. Teague’s promise is now and always has been an illusion: there simply are no watershed decisions.

Edwards v. Vannoy, Case No 19-5807, 2021 US LEXIS 2584 (May 17, 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

Last Week’s § 2255 Gleanings – Update for March 4, 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.

INMATES GO 2-2 ON § 2255 DECISIONS LAST WEEK

The Courts handed federal inmates two 28 USC § 2255 wins and two losses last week.

habeas191211For the uninitiated, habeas corpus (literally, a Latin imperative phrase to “produce the body”) has been around for about 806 years, give or take, ever since a band of angry noblemen forced King John to sign the Magna Carta (the “Great Charter of Liberties”) as an alternative to having his royal butt kicked.

One liberty the noblemen secured was the right not to be locked up without reason. The Magna Carta empowered courts to issue a writ (order) to a jailer to “produce the body” – that is, come to court with a particular prisoner and show why that prisoner’s detention is legal. Habeas corpus has become known as the “Great Writ,” so ingrained in English common law that our constitution simply assumes the right exists. The constitution only references habeas corpus in the negative, by denying the president the right to suspend the writ except in time of war.

Notwithstanding the constitutional origins of habeas corpus, Congress controls how prisoners may exercise their right to seek the writ in the federal courts by statute. For instance, 28 USC § 2244 regulates the filing of habeas corpus petitions for all claims of illegal detention for reasons other than a defect in the conviction or sentence. Section 2255 of Title 18 permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition where the claim is that the conviction or sentence is contrary to law.

Every federal prisoner has the right to bring one § 2255 motion, subject to rather strict time limits. Bringing a second such petition is possible under very limited circumstances, with permission first being granted by the Court of Appeals.

Now for the week’s news:

violence181008(1) Dearnta Thomas pled guilty to a substantive RICO offense, and an 18 USC § 924(c) count for using a gun in furtherance of a crime of violence. The predicate “crime of violence” for the § 924 offense was aiding and abetting the commission of a VICAR offense (Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity under 18 USC § 1959), those predicate violent crimes being two Virginia state-law offenses, a conviction for use or display of a firearm in committing a felony and another for “pointing, holding, or brandishing a firearm, air or gas-operated weapon or object similar in appearance.”

After the 2019 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Davis, Dearnta filed for permission under 28 USC § 2244 to bring a successive § 2255. Last week, the 4th Circuit held that Davis announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court and that Dearnta’s argument – that the state convictions were not crimes of violence within the meaning of Davis – stated a plausible claim.

(2) Meanwhile, Travis Harris asked the 5th Circuit for permission to file a successive § 2255 arguing that after Davis, his conviction for using a destructive device during a crime of violence (18 USC § 844(i)), should be thrown out, because the predicate offense – arson – was no longer a crime of violence.

The 5th agreed, holding – as the 4th Circuit has previously said – that Davis was retroactive and that Travis raised a plausible enough claim to go forward.

lawyerjoke180807(3) Things didn’t go so well for Kevin Kelley in the 1st Circuit. Kev figured he had a “gotcha:” it turned out the Assistant U.S. Attorney who had signed Kevin’s indictment had not paid his bar dues. Because F.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1) says that an indictment “must be signed by” a government lawyer, and the AUSA’s law license had been suspended for nonpayment of dues, Kevin argued in his § 2255 motion that the bad signature invalidated the indictment and “robbed the district court of jurisdiction to proceed against him.”

Last week, the 1st Circuit rejected Kev’s technicality. “The Supreme Court, after all, has long viewed a government lawyer’s indictment signing as necessary only as evidence of the authenticity of the document,” the Circuit said, and Rule 7’s “intent is for common sense to prevail over technicalities.” Thus, the Circuit said, “it is unsurprising that many courts refuse to stamp ‘invalid’ an indictment signed by a prosecutor with bar-license problems if other evidence shows that the government was backing the prosecution — with some cases explicitly saying that in such a situation, the complaining party cannot prove prejudice.”

Here, the evidence showed the indictment had been approved by the AUSA’s superior, and that was good enough for common sense to prevail, the Court ruled, especially where Kevin could prove he was not harmed by the suspended AUSA working under a nonpayment suspension.

(4) Finally, Greg Olson got a target letter from the U.S. Attorney, telling him he would be indicted, but offering that he could get a lawyer and work out a preindictment deal. Greg and his lawyer worked out a 30-month plea to tax evasion, but the deal foundered when the government refused to provide any discovery. Greg got indicted, hired a different lawyer, but ended up with a 48-month sentence.

target210305Greg filed a § 2255 motion claiming his pre-indictment lawyer screwed up the plea deal. But last week, a 9th Circuit panel shot him down. Precedent in the circuit holds a defendant has no 6th Amendment right to effective counsel before he is a defendant, meaning that a three-judge panel cannot overrule the prior case. Of course, in such cases, if a three-judge panel thinks the precedent is nonsense, it can refer its case to the court en banc, but here, the Circuit said, “In determining whether this is an appropriate case to do so, we must assess whether Olson might prevail if current circuit precedent were to be overruled… The record does not support Olson’s claim that his counsel was ineffective. An en banc ruling would therefore not affect the result.”

In re Thomas, Case No 19-292, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5316 (4th Cir. February 23, 2021)

In re Harris, Case No 19-51045, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5719 (5th Cir. February 25, 2021)

Kelley v. United States, Case No 19-1932, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5646 (1st Cir.  February 25, 2021)

United States v. Olson, Case No 19-16591, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5027 (9th Cir.  February 22, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

A Day to Beat Up Lawyers – Update for February 23, 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.

LAWYERS BEHAVING BADLY

Today, we feature a pair of cases in which lawyers are the stars, and not in a good way:

banana210223I Feel Conflicted: When Eric Scurry arrived for day 1 of his drug trial, his lawyer – Chris Davis – was missing. It seemed Chris had a hearing in another courtroom, and that one was more important to him than Eric’s was. This is not a development calculated to give a client a warm, fuzzy feeling about his attorney, the notion that his or her freedom was playing second banana to a client who had paid more for the lawyer’s services.

But not to fear, Eric! Chris’s wife, Mary, was also a lawyer, and Chris – who cared about Eric’s case very much – dispatched her to cover the trial. No matter (as it turned out later) that Mary had not read the file and knew nothing about Eric’s case. She was a warm body with a law degree, just what a guy facing decades in prison needed.

Had Mary read the file, she would have been aware that Eric and his co-defendants previously had attacked the wiretap that led to their arrest for a technical deficiency, albeit a glaring one. The district court denied their motion to suppress the evidence, but the issue their joint motion raised was a substantial one.

Everyone on the defense side of the table knew that… except for Mary. She convinced Eric to take a plea deal for a minimum 10 years, reserving only the right to appeal one inconsequential pretrial holding. The co-defendants also pled, but their attorneys reserved the right to appeal the wiretap suppression.

jailfree140410That turned out to be a good deal for Eric’s co-defendants. They appealed and won. The Court of Appeals held the government’s wiretap application to be deficient, and all of the evidence against them was suppressed. The co-defendants walked free. But Eric did not, because his plea deal did not reserve the right to raise that issue.

Eric seemed to recognize that Mary had screwed up, because on appeal, he had the Davises thrown off his case. He told the court he planned to accuse them later of incompetence. That made sense. But what happened next did not.

Inexplicably, when Eric filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 seeking to set aside his guilty plea, Mary offered to represent him on the motion, and he agreed. She then amended the § 2255 motion, claiming Eric had been coerced into pleading guilty by the evidence that had later been thrown out in his co-defendants’ cases, thus giving him the same level of professional representation on his § 2255 that she had given him at trial: lousy.

The problem was simple: to set aside his guilty plea and plea deal, Eric was required to show not just that his perception of the admissibility of the evidence was wrong, but that his lawyer had given him incompetent representation. Which of course Mary had. But because Mary failed to argue her own incompetence during the § 2255, the court denied Eric relief.

conflict200318Last week, the D.C. Circuit threw Mary (and, for good measure, Chris) off the case again. The problem is, the Circuit said, “as long as counsel’s advice to take the plea rather than gamble on an evidentiary suppression issue was “reasonably competent,” the plea is “not open to attack on the ground that counsel may have misjudged the admissibility of the defendant’s confession.” That being the case, Eric could not win his § 2255 unless he showed Mary has given him incompetent advice. And that, as I noted, meant Mary would have to argue that she was incompetent.

The Circuit ruled that “by affirmatively intervening in Scurry’s collateral proceedings despite the conflict and not pressing the ineffective assistance claim, Davis seemingly made a choice advancing her own interest at the expense of her client’s.”

Eric will get another shot at relief, this time – we trust – with a competent lawyer.

usmale210223I’m A U.S. Male: Elvis warned that you shouldn’t “tamper with the property of the U.S. Mail (or maybe ‘male’)”. Last week, Sixth Circuit said you can’t use the U.S. mail to tamper with statutory deadlines, either.

Blake Cretacci hired a lawyer to file a 42 USC § 1983 action for damages against some local jail guards who allegedly used excessive force against him and . Blake hired a local lawyer by the unlikely name of Andy Justice, who prepared the complaint. Andy planned to file the federal court complaint electronically, as attorney members of the bar of the court are allowed to do. But on the night before the statute of limitations expired on Blake’s claim, Andy discovered that Coffee County, Tennessee, where the conduct occurred, was not in the Middle District of Tennessee, where Andy was admitted, but instead in the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Andy was not admitted.

The next day, Andy tried to get admitted to the Eastern District so he could electronically file the complaint, but that could not be accomplished in only a day. Andy drove to a federal courthouse in Winchester, Tennessee, to try to file the complaint in person, but there was no staffed clerk’s office there. By then, Andy could not get to the Chattanooga federal courthouse in time, but he had an idea.

The “prison mailbox rule,” enshrined in Houston v. Lack, holds that if an inmate files a document with a federal court by mailing it from the prison, the filing is deemed to be delivered to the courthouse the moment the inmate turns it over to a prison official. Andy, being a bright lawyer, knew this, so he ran the complaint over to Blake at the jail.

Andy told Blake that he should deliver it to a correctional officer immediately, explaining that because he was an inmate, he could take advantage of the prison mailbox rule. Blake did so.

dogmail210223Last week, the 6th Circuit threw out Blake’s complaint as untimely. The Circuit ruled that “the prison mailbox rule was created to prevent pro se prisoners from being penalized by any delays in filing caused by the prison mail system. But if a prisoner does not need to use the prison mail system, and instead relies on counsel to file a pleading on his or her behalf, the prison is no longer responsible for any delays and the rationale of the prison mailbox rule does not apply… Accordingly, we hold that, in the context of the filing of civil complaints, the prison mailbox rule applies only to prisoners who are not represented by counsel and are proceeding pro se.”

Nice try, Andy, but you can’t use the U.S. mail to tamper with court deadlines. Elvis could have told you that.

United States v. Scurry, Case No 18-3067, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4785 (D.C. Cir.  Feb 19, 2021)

Cretacci v. Call, Case No 20-5669, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4493 (6th Cir. Feb 17, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Resentencing Good Fortune Can’t Be Bootstrapped Into a New 2255 – Update for February 8, 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.

GOING BACK TO THE WELL

nogoingback210208Any federal prisoner who has filed a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255 knows that the § 2255 remedy – a powerful way to get as conviction overturned or sentence vacated – is pretty much a one-and-done thing: you can’t file a second § 2255 without permission from a court of appeals (pursuant to 28 USC § 2244). Getting that permission is a pretty tall order, requiring that you show there’s a new Supreme Court decision that the Court has decided should be applied retroactively to cases already decided, or you have some newly-discovered evidence that is so boffo that the jury would have acquitted you and the judge himself would have driven you home.

Charlie Armstrong thought he had found a work-around that would let him file a second § 2255 without having to jump through the § 2244 hoop. After being convicted and imprisoned on a marijuana charge, Charlie found himself to be the beneficiary of the Sentencing Commission’s 2014 reduction of drug-crime scoring for Guidelines sentence. The change was essentially an across-the-board reduction of two levels, and people already sentenced were allowed to apply two their sentencing judges for discretionary resentencing applying the 2-level reduction under the procedure laid out in 18 USC § 3582(c)(2).

After his conviction but before the 2014 Guidelines reduction, Charlie filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. While the § 2255 motion was pending, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, and after Charlie applied to his sentencing court, his judge cut his sentence by 25%.

mulligan190430Some time later, the district court got around to denying Charlie’s § 2255 motion (which, alas, is the fate of most such motions). Charlie promptly filed a second § 2255, challenging his newly-reduced sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of his attorney. Charlie explained that he didn’t need § 2244 permission to file the new motion, because his 2-level reduction was a new, intervening judgment giving him the right to challenge the new sentence with a § 2255, essentially giving him a § 2255 mulligan.

The district court disagreed, and dismissed the new § 2255 petition as a second or successive motion.

The 2010 Supreme Court Magwood v. Patterson decision held that if “there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two [§ 2255] petitions, an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not second or successive.” With this opinion in hand, Charlie appealed the district court’s denial, arguing his 2-level reduction was the exactly the kind of new judgment Magwood had in mind.

doover210208Last week, the 11th Circuit turned him down. The Circuit said that in Magwood, the sentencing court “conducted a full resentencing and reviewed the aggravating evidence afresh,” the 11th said, giving the sentencing judge a chance to commit new errors or to repeat the same errors as in the original sentence. But a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction “does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding.” Instead, it simply “provides for the ‘modification of a term of imprisonment’ by giving courts the power to ‘reduce’ an otherwise final sentence in circumstances specified by the Commission.”

Armstrong v. United States, Case No 18-13041, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3265 (11th Cir., February 5, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

For The Want of a Nail… – Update for December 15, 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.

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AIN’T JUST ANOTHER 2255

career160509Stephen Fine pled guilty in 2014 to a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy (21 USC § 846) and money laundering (18 USC § 1956). At sentencing, the district court found Steve was a Guidelines career offender (USSG § 4B1.1) based on two prior state drug convictions.

As regular readers know, being christened a “career offender” exposes a defendant to dramatically higher Guidelines sentencing ranges.

After conviction, Steve attacked his conviction in a 28 USC § 2255 habeas corpus action, alleging his lawyer had been ineffective. The motion failed. Then in July 2019, Steve filed an 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) sentence reduction motion, asking the court for what is generally known as “compassionate release.”

kleenix201215A momentary frolic into grammar and language: The statute calls the action of a court modifying a sentence in response to a proper motion under § 3582(c) as a “sentence reduction.” Originally, the § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion could only be brought on a prisoner’s behalf by the Bureau of Prisons, something that happened seldom enough to make a Blue Moon seem commonplace by comparison. Nevertheless, the BOP started referring to the motion it alone was authorized to bring as “compassionate release,” and the term – like a brandnomer – stuck. Think “tissue” (sentence reduction) versus “Kleenex” (compassionate release).

A § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release motion must show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction. Steve’s extraordinary and compelling reasons were (1) his “post-sentencing rehabilitation” and (2) that he was actually innocent of his sentence, because court decisions since his sentencing had held that the state convictions his judge relied on in declaring him a career offender should not have been counted in that calculus.

His district court turned down the compassionate release motion. Last week, the 8th Circuit agreed.

rehabilitation201215Citing Guideline § 1B1.13 (which, by the way, the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th have held does not apply to an inmate-filed compassionate release motion), the 8th Circuit held that rehabilitation alone was not a proper basis for a sentence reduction motion. As for Steve’s claim that he was not properly a career offender – his other extraordinary and compelling reason – the Court noted that his “challenge to the career offender determination was still a challenge to his sentence. A federal inmate generally must challenge a sentence through a § 2255 motion, and a post-judgment motion that fits the description of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence should be treated as a § 2255 motion… Even an intervening change in the law does not take a motion outside the realm of § 2255 when it seeks to set aside a sentence… The district court was therefore correct that his challenge to the career offender determination and resulting sentence was an unauthorized successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence.”

In a compassionate release motion, a defendant who has established an extraordinary and compelling reason must also show that grant of the motion would be reasonably consistent with the sentencing factors set out in 18 USC § 3553(a). That was where Steve’s sentence argument would have fit. Had he suggested that a sentence reduction would have been consistent with § 3553(a) factors, because the correct punishment – and thus, the punishment society suggests would be adequate but not too great – was really a lot less than what he got.

nail201215Of course, Steve still would have lost, because he was missing an “extraordinary and compelling reason.” Without one of those, none of the rest of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) matters at all. For the want of a nail…

United States v. Fine, Case No 19-3485, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38786 (8th Cir Dec 11, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root