Tag Archives: mandatory guidelines

Supreme Court, Weary of ACCA, Ducks Trio of Cases – Update for October 22, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

SUPREME COURT REFUSES CHANCE TO APPLY JOHNSON TO MANDATORY GUIDELINES

Three years ago, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act definition of a crime of violence, which included within its sweep any crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” was unconstitutionally vague. Because the ACCA’s definition was identical to the Guidelines’ “career offender” definition, a lot of people thought that it was only a matter of time before “career offender” sentences would be cut as well.

thilo181022But two years after Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled in Beckles v. United States that because the Guidelines are merely advisory, a constitutional vagueness challenge to the career offender guidelines would not work. But the Guidelines have only been advisory since 2005, when United States v. Booker held that mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional. What the Beckles court did not answer was the question of whether someone whose “career offender” sentence was imposed under the pre-2005 mandatory Guidelines could successfully make a Johnson challenge. Nevertheless, Beckles seemed to presage a holding that would invalidate mandatory Guideline “career offender” sentences under Johnson as soon as the proper case presented itself to the Supremes.

Thilo Brown, as well as two other mandatory Guidelines “career offenders,” had such cases, and their petitions for writs of certiorari arrived at the high court last summer while the Justices were gone fishin’. The three cases would provide the Court a chance to answer the Johnson mandatory “career offender” question everyone thought the Justices had all but begged to have presented.

Apparently not. Last week, the Court denied certiorari to all three.

The decision not to review Thilo’s case drew a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, rare for a cert denial. She said, “This important question, which has generated divergence among the lower courts, calls out for an answer… Regardless of where one stands on the merits of how far Johnson extends, this case presents an important question of federal law that has divided the courts of appeals and in theory could determine the liberty of over 1,000 people. That sounds like the kind of case we ought to hear.”

Brown v. United States, Case 17-9276 (Supreme Court, Oct. 15, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Mandatory Guidelines ‘Johnson’ Challenge Neither Fish nor Foul – Update for September 13, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

8TH CIRCUIT SLAMS PROCEDURAL DOOR ON A MANDATORY GUIDELINES JOHNSON CHALLENGE

In 2004, Jeff Russo was convicted of some drug and firearm offenses. The court sentenced him as a Guidelines career offender to 235 months for reasons. After Jeff was sentenced, the Supreme Court declared the Guidelines to be advisory in United States v. Booker, but that didn’t help Jeff, whose Guidelines were considered mandatory when they were imposed.

BettyWhiteACCA180503In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Within a year of Johnson, Jeff filed a 28 USC 2255 motion, claiming district court relied on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) to conclude that he was a Guidelines career offender. He argued that the residual clause in 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutionally vague because it was almost identical to the clause held unconstitutional in Johnson. Jeff argued the court should vacate his sentence because it was calculated based on an unconstitutionally vague provision in the mandatory guidelines.

After he filed his motion, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, that the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2) in the post-Booker advisory guidelines is not subject to a vagueness challenge. Jeff argued that Beckles did not apply to the old mandatory Guidelines, because they “fix” a defendant’s sentence like the statute in Johnson, and are not flexible like the advisory guidelines ruled on in Beckles.

The district court dismissed Jeff’s motion as untimely, ruling that his motion was timely only if he filed it within a year of the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. The district court said Jeff’s claimed right to be sentenced without the residual clause required “an extension, not an application, of the rule announced in Johnson.” Because the Supreme Court had not yet recognized the right that Jeff asserted, the district court ruled, his 2255 was untimely and should be thrown out.

vaguenes160516Last week, the 8th Circuit agreed with the district court. The Circuit admitted that it is “reasonably debatable whether Johnson’s holding regarding the ACCA extends to the former mandatory guidelines. However, it ruled, “the better view is that Beckles leaves open the question whether the mandatory guidelines are susceptible to vagueness challenges. Because the question remains open, and the answer is reasonably debatable, Johnson did not recognize the right Jeff was asserting, and he thus cannot benefit from the limitations period in Sec. 2255(f)(3).

Russo v. United States, Case No. 17-2424 (8th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Mandatory Guideline Career Offenders Get an ACCA Break – Update for June 12, 2018

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. 

LISAStatHeader2small
7TH CIRCUIT EXTENDS JOHNSON TO PRE-BOOKER CAREER OFFENDERS

BettyWhiteACCA180503When Johnson v. United States declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “crime of violence” to be unconstitutionally vague, prisoners who had ACCA convictions, 18 USC 924(c) convictions and Guidelines “career offender” sentences based on crimes of violence started a land rush to district courts to get resentenced.

But their enthusiasm cooled off when the Supreme Court, in Beckles v. United States, ruled that the ruling did not apply to the several places in the Guidelines that used a “crime of violence” residual clause that read like the one in the ACCA. Beckles held that the vagueness concerns that made the ACCA residual clause unconstitutional were not present where the Sentencing Guidelines were concerned, because the Guidelines were merely advisory: that is, a judge did not have to follow them.

However, some inmates were still serving sentences handed down before the Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Guidelines to be merely advisory in United States v. Booker. Beckles simply did not address their situation.

Last week, the 7th Circuit did so, holding that “under Johnson, the guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague insofar as it determined mandatory sentencing ranges for pre-Booker defendants.”

advisoryguidelines180613In Beckles, the Circuit said, the Supreme Court “took care… to specify that it was addressing only the post-Booker, advisory version of the guidelines.” In fact, the 7th said, “Beckles’ logic for declining to apply the vagueness doctrine rests entirely on the advisory quality of the current guidelines… Beckles reaffirmed that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to ‘laws that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses.’ As Booker described, the mandatory guidelines did just that. They fixed sentencing ranges from a constitutional perspective… The residual clause of the mandatory guidelines did not merely guide judges’ discretion; rather, it mandated a specific sentencing range and permitted deviation only on narrow, statutorily fixed bases.”

The 7th Circuit concluded that the career offender provisions of “the mandatory guidelines are thus subject to attack on vagueness grounds.”

Cross v. United States, Case No. 17-2282 (7th Cir., June 7, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

SCOTUS Hems and Haws, Then Passes on Change to Refine Beckles – Update for June 1, 2018

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. 

LISAStatHeader2small
SUPREME COURT NIXES CHANCE TO ANSWER QUESTION LEFT HANGING BY BECKLES

A few weeks ago, we reported that the Supreme Court had relisted three related cases an unusual number of times. (A relist is when the Supreme Court schedules a certiorari petition for a decision at the weekly Friday justices’ conference, but then defers any decision until the next conference, essentially “relisting” it on the next week’s conference list).

missedopp180531Last week, the Court denied review without comment on those cases, Allen v. United States, Gates v. United States, and James v. United States. All of these cases asked whether under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. Booker, Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States – all of which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes – the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. Now that question will go unanswered for now.

SCOTUSBlog noted last week, “It’s curious when cases that have been relisted as many as ten times are denied review without even a short statement respecting denial. But perhaps, just as the most effective dissent from denial of cert is never seen (because the court just decides to go ahead and grant review), maybe someone wrote a killer concurrence.”

Supreme Court, Order (May 21, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

4th Circuit Hands Down a ‘Catch-22’ in Brown Case – Update for August 23, 2017

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.

LISAStatHeader2small
CATCH-22

catch22cvr170823Those of us approaching social security age lament that the younger among us (and that’s getting to be just about everyone) no longer recalls Joseph Heller’s classic satirical novel about allied bomber pilots in World War II named Catch-22.

The expression “Catch-22” has since entered the lexicon, referring to a type of unsolvable logic puzzle sometimes called a double bind. According to the novel, people who were crazy were not obligated to fly missions, but anyone who applied to stop flying was showing a rational concern for his safety and was, therefore, sane and had to fly.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but the 4th Circuit came pretty close to defining a “Catch-22” on Monday. Thilo Brown had been sentenced as a career offender back in the bad old days, when the Guidelines were mandatory. He had been enhanced as a “career offender” for prior crimes of violence, among those being a prior state conviction for resisting arrest. After the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of a “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague, people who had been sentenced under the ACCA because of priors like Thilo’s won substantial sentence relief.

Thilo’s problem was that he wasn’t sentenced under the ACCA, despite the fact that the “career offender” Guidelines used the identical, word-for-word language defining a “crime of violence” that the Johnson court threw out of the ACCA. But he dutifully filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC 2255 asking that his “career offender” status be vacated because of Johnson.

The government argued vociferously against Thilo, maintaining that the Guidelines are different that the ACCA, and that the same language that is unconstitutional in one is hunky dory in the other. The Supreme Court took up the question last spring in Beckles v. United States, and agreed that because the Guidelines merely recommended to the judge how to sentence offenders, if they were a little too vague, there’s no harm done.

But the Beckles Court was careful to explain that it was only deciding the case in front of it, in which the prisoner had been sentenced after the Guidelines became advisory in 2005. The Supreme Court said it was not considering whether the vague “crime of violence” language might violate a prisoner’s due process rights if used to sentence someone under the mandatory Guidelines.

catch22vis170823So Thilo pursued his 2255 motion, arguing that Johnson is a new right recognized by the Supreme Court which does extend to mandatory Guidelines people like himself. This is an important argument, because Thilo’s 2255 motion fell within the time deadline set out in 28 USC 2255(f)(3) only if it was filed within a year of the right he was asserting being recognized by the Supreme Court, and being made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

Everyone had high hopes for Brown. Countless other lower court cases were stayed awaiting the decision. In fact, a 6th Circuit decision last week cited the pending Brown decision as being the one to resolve the question that went unanswered in Beckles: is the “career offender” residual clause unconstitutional when applied to mandatory Guidelines offenders?

The 4th Circuit has now ruled, and it has dodged the issue slickly. The Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that Brown’s 2255 petition was untimely.

The panel said the right under which an inmate proceeds has to be a right recognized by the Supreme Court. This means, the Circuit said, that only the Supreme Court can recognize the right. There is no derivative authority. That is, a lower court cannot recognize a right it may believe is implicit in analogous holdings by the Supreme Court.

vaguenes160516The Supreme Court recognized in Johnson that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague (a due process violation, because everyone has a 5th Amendment right to understand what conduct is or is not unlawful). However, this recognition does not mean that the right was recognized for “career offenders” sentenced under Guidelines using the same language.

The 4th noted that the Supreme Court said in Beckles that it was not deciding Johnson’s applicability to mandatory Guidelines career offender cases. This merely proved, according to the Brown court, that the Supremes had definitely not yet recognized the right being asserted by Thilo.

Here’s the Catch-22 with the 4th Circuit’s approach. First, accept that no one who has a career offender sentence under the mandatory Guidelines could have possibly been sentenced after 2004, because it would not have been final when United States v. Booker was issued in January 2005, and would have gotten the benefit of a resentencing.

If a “career offender” Guidelines sentence was final on December 31, 2004, a timely 28 USC 2255 motion had to be filed by December 31, 2005. But as of that time, the right to not be sentenced for vague residual-clause offenses was still more than nine years in the future. No 2255 raising the unconstitutionality of the residual clause had any realistic chance of success until the end of June 2015, when Johnson was handed down.

But if the Brown decision is right, in order for such a 2255 to be successful, it had to be timely under 2255(f)(3), because no other subsection would have made such a filing timely.

Except that it could not possibly be timely under (f)(3). The identical “residual clause” language found to be unconstitutional in Johnson could be tested under the advisory Guidelines, because at the time Johnson was decided, people were still being sentenced as career offenders under the Guidelines. Someone could test the language in a 2255 motion filed within a year of finality. But no one could test whether the language remained constitutional if applied to a mandatory Guidelines sentence, because no timely 2255 could be filed challenging its application to a sentence that necessarily had to have been imposed more than nine years before.

Thus, if the 4th Circuit is right in Brown, to assert a constitutional right just recently defined by the Supreme Court, a mandatory Guidelines prisoner would have to have filed the petition challenging it a decade ago, when the right did not exist and he or she would be laughed out of court.

It’s not quite a Catch-22, but it certainly carries the same level of arbitrariness and frustration.

The dissenting judge argued persuasively that the right recognized by the Supreme Court does not have to be the precise application being sought by the petitioner. Instead, alleging a rational and supportable extension of the newly-recognized to a similar fact situation is enough. Certainly, it is more efficient, and is reasonably calculated to do justice.

And should that not count for something?

United States v. Brown, Case No. 16-7056 (4th Cir., August 21, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small