Tag Archives: savings clause

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

4th Circuit Denies Government Rehearing, May Force SCOTUS Review on 2241 – Update for June 18, 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
GOVERNMENT DENIED REHEARING ON 4TH CIRCUIT WHEELER CASE

We reported last April that in United States v. Wheeler, the 4th Circuit had reversed years of enforcing a policy of denying collateral review to people who improperly received higher sentences due to prior convictions, in a decision that defined when the 28 USC 2255(e) “savings clause” would let someone file a 28 USC 2241 habeas corpus action.

savings180618Gerald Wheeler had gotten a higher sentence because of a prior North Carolina drug felony that years later was ruled in United States v. Simmons to not be a felony. But Simmons’ retroactivity came too late for Jerry, whose 2255 motion had already been denied. He filed a 2241 motion, which was denied by the district court because he could only show he was actually innocent of the sentence, not of the underlying conviction.

Whether the 2255(e) savings clause applies to sentences as well as to convictions was left hanging in the 2016 United States v. Surratt case, which was dismissed on rehearing in the 4th Circuit when Mr. Surratt got a commutation from President Obama. After Mr. Wheeler won, the government requested rehearing en banc. Such requests from the government are rare and are usually granted by appeals courts. But last week, the 4th Circuit denied rehearing, making Wheeler binding precedent.

The 10th and 11th Circuits have held that a 2241 is never available to correct a change in the law. But seven other circuits permit a 2241 under the “savings clause” where a change in the law makes a defendant actually innocent of the underlying offense. Now, three circuits – the 4th, 6th and 7th – even permit a sentencing-based claim to proceed on 2241 via the saving clause.

wheelin180618Two 4th Circuit judges filed concurrences on the rehearing denial. One said that to deny Wheeler the right to test the legality of his sentence would be a miscarriage of justice. The other blasted the decision as defeat the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by letting inmates endlessly relitigate, saying “the issues in this case are of significant national importance and are best considered by the Supreme Court at the earliest possible date in order to resolve an existing circuit split that the panel decision broadens even farther.  Because of the potential that the case may become moot if Wheeler is released from incarceration in October 2019, as projected, I have not requested a poll of the Court upon the petition for rehearing en banc in order to expedite the path for the Government to petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.”

Supreme Court review of Wheeler might delay some inmates who can use the decision right away, but a review of the circuit split on proper use of the “savings clause” is long overdue. Professor Doug Berman of Ohio State University law school predicted in his sentencing blog last week that “this issue, if not this case, will be taken up by SCOTUS relatively soon. But I have said this and been wrong before, so maybe I will be blogging in six months saying, ‘Hey, I was wrong’. But I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse for why my SCOTUS prediction was off.”

Order, United States v. Wheeler (4th Cir., June 11, 2018)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Spotlighting lower-court divides over AEDPA’s savings clause and consideration of sentencing errors (June 12, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

A Nation of Second Chances – Update for January 19, 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
5th CIRCUIT OKS 2241 ATTACK UNDER BURRAGE

second170119Everyone’s been gushing about second chances, as President Obama goes out in a blaze of commutation glory, granting sentence clemency to over 600 people in his final days in office. And we have no problem with that, except that so many others who were punished with draconian sentences they could never get today were left behind. 

This week also brought a “second chance” for a rational sentence of a different kind. 

Tiofila Santillana was trafficking in methadone. One of her buyers, as buyers of illegally-sold controlled substances are wont to do, overdosed on a cocktail of alcohol and multiple drugs – including methadone – and “shuffel’d off this mortall coile” (which is Shakespearean for “died).” Under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C), if death results from drugs distributed by a defendant, a court must sentence a defendant to a mandatory minimum 20 years.

The experts testifying in Tiofila’s case agreed that her methadone contributed to the doper’s death, even though it was not the cause of death. The trial court felt obliged to hammer her with a 20-year sentence.

cocktail170119Five years after Tiofila’s conviction, the Supreme Court held in Burrage v. United States that where “use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C) unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury.” Tiofila promptly filed for relief.

But here’s the rub. Tiofila was out of time to file a motion under 28 USC 2255, because that statute requires that the motion be filed within a year of the case becoming final. There is an exception where the “right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”

Tiofila filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2241, claiming she was entitled to relief under Burrage v. United States. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Tiofila had not satisfied the “savings clause” of 28 USC 2255(e) because Burrage was not retroactively applicable on collateral review.

Earlier this week, the 5th Circuit reversed, agreeing with Tiofila that she is entitled to relief. The case provides a clear roadmap as to what must be shown by a petitioner seeking to use a 2241 motion because he or she says a 2255 will not do.

inadequacy17-119Ordinarily, to attack a conviction collaterally, a federal prisoner can seek relief only by a 2255 motion. But under 2255(e)’s “savings clause,” she may file a habeas petition if Sec. 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality” of the detention. Courts have held 2255 to be “inadequate or ineffective” if the 2241 petition raises a claim “that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision”; (2) the claim was previously “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when [it] should have been raised in petitioner’s trial, appeal or first 2255 motion”; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that “the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.”

The Court held that Burrage was retroactive whether the Supreme Court had said so or not, because such new Supreme Court decisions “interpreting federal statutes that substantively define criminal offenses automatically apply retroactively,” applying retroactively because they “necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal…”

retro160110The district court had dismissed Tiofila’s petition, relying on Tyler v. Cain, which held that for a prisoner to file a second or successive habeas petition based on a new rule of constitutional law, the Supreme Court must have held the rule to be retroactive to cases on collateral review. But Tyler does not apply to the “savings clause” of 2255(e), the Circuit said, which requires only that a qualifying 2241 petition be based on a “retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision,” without specifying that the Supreme Court must have made the determination of retroactivity.

On its face, the Court said, “Burrage is a substantive decision that interprets the scope of a federal criminal statute… At issue in Burrage was the meaning of “death or serious bodily injury results.” The Burrage holding “narrows the scope of a criminal statute, because but-for causation is a stricter requirement than are some alternative interpretations of “results.”

Santillana v. Warden, Case No, 15-10606 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small