Joseph Story v. United States (Solicitor General’s Brief)

8/12/2019 Joseph Story v. United States (Solicitor Generals Brief)

1/22

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No. 13- 7283________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES

_______________

J OSEPH STORY, PETI TI ONER

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

_______________

ON PETI TI ON FOR A WRI T OF CERTI ORARITO THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

_______________

BRI EF FOR THE UNI TED STATES

_______________

DONALD B. VERRI LLI , J R.Sol i ci t or Gener al

Counsel of Recor d

MYTHI LI RAMANAct i ng Assi st ant

At t or ney Gener al

MI CHAEL A. ROTKERAt t or ney

Depar t ment of J ust i ceWashi ngt on, D. C. 20530- 0001Supr emeCt Br i ef s@usdoj . gov( 202) 514- 2217


2/22

( I )

QUESTI ON PRESENTED

Whet her pet i t i oner i s ent i t l ed t o a cer t i f i cat e of

appeal abi l i t y t o appeal t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o vacat e hi s

mandat ory 20- year sent ence under 28 U. S. C. 2255, when

i nt er veni ng pr ecedent est abl i shes t hat pet i t i oner s mandat or y

sent ence was i mposed i n err or .


3/22

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES

_______________

No. 13- 7283

J OSEPH STORY, PETI TI ONER

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

_______________

ON PETI TI ON FOR A WRI T OF CERTI ORARI

TO THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

_______________

BRI EF FOR THE UNI TED STATES

_______________

OPI NI ONS BELOW

The opi ni on of t he cour t of appeal s denyi ng a cer t i f i cat e

of appeal abi l i t y ( Pet . App. 2- 6) i s not publ i shed. Pr i or

opi ni ons of t he cour t of appeal s i n pet i t i oner s case ar e

r epor t ed at 125 Fed. Appx. 646 and 503 F. 3d 436.

J URI SDI CTI ON

The j udgment of t he cour t of appeal s was ent er ed on Mar ch

13, 2013. A pet i t i on f or r ehear i ng was deni ed on August 6, 2013

( Pet . App. 1) . The pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i was f i l ed

on November 4, 2013. The j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s Cour t i s i nvoked

under 28 U. S. C. 1254( 1) .


4/22

2

STATEMENT

I n 2002, f ol l owi ng a j ur y tr i al i n t he Uni t ed St at es

Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er n Di st r i ct of Tennessee, pet i t i oner

was convi ct ed of conspi r acy to di st r i but e and possessi on wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e 50 gr ams or mor e of cocai ne base, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 846 and 841( a) ( 1) , and di st r i but i on of

cocai ne base, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) . He was

sentenced t o 360 mont hs of i mpr i sonment . The cour t of appeal s

vacat ed pet i t i oner s sent ence and r emanded f or r esent enci ng i nl i ght of Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) . 125 Fed

Appx. 646 ( 6t h Ci r . 2005) . On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t

r esent enced pet i t i oner t o 300 mont hs of i mpr i sonment . The cour t

of appeal s vacated t he sent ence and remanded f or r esent enci ng.

503 F. 3d 436 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) . The di st r i ct cour t t hen

r esent enced pet i t i oner t o 240 mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

I n 2009, pet i t i oner f i l ed a mot i on t o vacat e hi s sent ence

under 28 U. S. C. 2255. I n 2011 and 2012, pet i t i oner f i l ed

mot i ons f or l eave t o amend hi s Sect i on 2255 mot i on. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed pet i t i oner s Sect i on 2255 mot i on as wel l

as hi s mot i ons t o amend, and i t al so deni ed pet i t i oner s

appl i cat i on f or a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y ( COA) . Pet . App.

7- 26. The cour t of appeal s deni ed a COA as wel l . I d. at 2- 6.

1. Fr om Febr uar y 2001 t o Febr uar y 2002, pet i t i oner and t wo

ot her i ndi vi dual s par t i ci pat ed i n a dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy.


5/22

3

I n Mar ch 2002, pet i t i oner was i ndi ct ed by a f eder al gr and j ur y

i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Tennessee and char ged wi t h conspi r acy

t o di st r i but e and possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e 50 gr ams

or mor e of cocai ne base, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 846 and

841( a) ( 1) ( Count 1) , and di st r i but i on of cocai ne base, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) ( Count s 6 and 7) .

Under t he l aw t hen i n ef f ect , 1 a f i r st - t i me of f ender

convi ct ed of an of f ense i nvol vi ng t he char ged dr ug quant i t i es

f aced a mandatory mi ni mum sentence of t en years of i mpr i sonment

and a maxi mum sent ence of l i f e. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i )

( 2000) . I f t he of f ender s cri mi nal hi st or y i ncl uded a pr i or

convi ct i on f or a f el ony dr ug of f ense, t hen t he of f ender was

subj ect t o a mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence of 20 year s of

i mpr i sonment and a maxi mum sent ence of l i f e. I bi d. A f el ony

dr ug of f ense i s def i ned as a f eder al , st at e, or f or ei gn dr ug

of f ense t hat i s puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment f or more t han one

year . 21 U. S. C. 802( 44) . A cour t may not i mpose a r eci di vi sm-

based st atut ory enhancement unl ess t he government f i l es an

1 I n 2010, t he Fai r Sent enci ng Act of 2010 ( FSA) , Pub. L.No. 111- 220, 124 St at . 2372, r ai sed t he t hr eshol d quant i t y ofcocai ne base t r i gger i ng a t en- year mi ni mum sent ence f r om 50 t o280 gr ams. Pet i t i oner , however , was sent enced years bef ore t heFSA s ef f ect i ve dat e, and t he amended dr ug quant i t i es appl y onl yt o post - FSA sent enci ngs. See Dor sey v. Uni t ed St at es, 132 S.Ct . 2321 ( 2012) . Pet i t i oner does not r el y on t he FSA her e.


6/22

4

i nf or mat i on t hat not i f i es t he def endant of t he pr i or convi ct i ons

t r i gger i ng t he enhancement . 21 U. S. C. 851( a) ( 1) .

Bef or e t r i al , t he gover nment f i l ed a not i ce under Sect i on

851 i ndi cat i ng i t s i nt ent t o seek an enhanced sent ence agai nst

pet i t i oner i n t he event of a convi ct i on. The not i ce st at ed t hat

pet i t i oner had been convi ct ed i n 1996 i n Al amance Count y, Nort h

Car ol i na, Super i or Cour t , of f el ony possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

sel l and del i ver cocai ne. I nf or mat i on ( J an. 24, 2003) ) ;

Present ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( PSR) 47. The j udgment wi t h

r espect t o t he Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on r ef l ect s t hat

pet i t i oner f aced a maxi mum sent ence of t en mont hs of

i mpr i sonment . N. C. Gen. St at . Ann. 15A- 1340. 17( c) ( West

1996) .

Nor t h Carol i na empl oys a determi nate sentenci ng scheme i n

whi ch each def endant s sent enci ng range i s determi ned by

consi der i ng hi s of f ense, hi s pr i or convi ct i ons, and any

mi t i gat i ng or aggr avat i ng f act or s. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Si mmons, 649 F. 3d 237, 239- 240 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( en banc) . At

t he t i me of pet i t i oner s convi ct i on, t he Si xt h Ci r cui t had not

addr essed t he quest i on of how t o determi ne whether a pr i or Nort h

Car ol i na convi ct i on i s f or a cr i me puni shabl e by a pr i son t er m

exceedi ng one year - - i . e. , i s a f el ony dr ug of f ense under

Sect i on 802( 44) . The Four t h Ci r cui t , however , had hel d t hat

cour t s wer e to det ermi ne whet her a Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on


7/22

5

sat i sf i ed Sect i on 802( 44) by ascer t ai ni ng whet her any

def endant , i ncl udi ng one wi t h t he wor st possi bl e cr i mi nal

hi st or y, coul d have r ecei ved a sent ence exceedi ng one year f or

t hat of f ense. Uni t ed St at es v. Har p, 406 F. 3d 242, 246 ( 4t h

Ci r . ) ( descr i bi ng t he Four t h Ci r cui t s appr oach t o eval uat i ng

Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i ons, as set f or t h i n Uni t ed St at es v.

J ones, 195 F. 3d 205 ( 4t h Ci r . 1999) , cer t . deni ed, 529 U. S. 1029

( 2000) ) , cer t . deni ed, 546 U. S. 919 ( 2005) . Under t he anal ysi s

set f or t h i n J ones and Har p, pet i t i oner s Nor t h Car ol i na

convi ct i on qual i f i ed as a f el ony dr ug of f ense, even t hough

pet i t i oner hi msel f was not exposed t o a maxi mum sent ence

exceedi ng one year of i mpr i sonment .

2. Fol l owi ng a j ur y t r i al , pet i t i oner was convi ct ed on

Count s 1 and 7, and acqui t t ed on Count 6. The pr obat i on of f i cer

det er mi ned t hat t he quant i t y of dr ugs f or whi ch pet i t i oner was

r esponsi bl e, PSR 15, coupl ed wi t h pet i t i oner s pr i or f el ony

dr ug of f ense convi ct i on, subj ect ed pet i t i oner t o a mandat or y

mi ni mum sentence of 20 years of i mpr i sonment and a maxi mum of

l i f e on Count 1, PSR 78, and a maxi mum sent ence of 30 year s of

i mpr i sonment , wi t h no mandatory mi ni mum, on Count 7, i bi d. At

sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed concur r ent 30- year

sent ences, t o be f ol l owed by t en year s of super vi sed r el ease.

The cour t of appeal s af f i r med pet i t i oner s convi ct i ons, but

vacat ed hi s sent ence and r emanded f or r esent enci ng i n l i ght of


8/22

6

Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) . 125 Fed. Appx.

646 ( 6t h Ci r . 2005) .

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t r esent enced pet i t i oner t o 300

mont hs of i mpr i sonment . 503 F. 3d 436, 438 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) . The

cour t of appeal s vacat ed t hat sent ence on t he gr ound t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t had mi sst at ed t he Gui del i nes range. I d. at 441.

I n Mar ch 2008, t he di st r i ct cour t r esent enced pet i t i oner t o

concur r ent 20- year sent ences. 2: 02- cr - 00022- 3 Docket ent r y No.

( Docket No. ) 170 ( E. D. Tenn. Mar . 24, 2008) . Pet i t i oner di d not

appeal .

3. a. On Mar ch 23, 2009, pet i t i oner t i mel y f i l ed a mot i on

t o vacat e hi s sent ence under 28 U. S. C. 2255( a) , al l egi ng t hat

hi s t r i al counsel was i nef f ect i ve at hi s second r esent enci ng

hear i ng by f ai l i ng t o r equest a sent ence bel ow 20 years, and at

t r i al by f ai l i ng t o move t o suppr ess cer t ai n i ncul pat or y

st at ement s. Pet . App. 40- 43. The gover nment f i l ed an

opposi t i on t o pet i t i oner s mot i on, ar gui ng t hat pet i t i oner was

not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t he mer i t s. Docket No. 181, at 5- 11

( J une 26, 2009) .

On Oct ober 17, 2011, whi l e pet i t i oner s mot i on was pendi ng,

pet i t i oner f i l ed a mot i on f or l eave t o amend hi s Sect i on 2255

mot i on, seeki ng t o r ai se a cl ai m t hat hi s 1996 Nor t h Car ol i na

dr ug convi ct i on was not a f el ony dr ug of f ense t r i gger i ng t he

20- year mandatory mi ni mum. Pet . App. 33- 35. Pet i t i oner


9/22

7

observed t hat , i n Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ui t t , 545 F. 3d 416, 424- 426

( 2008) , t he Si xt h Ci r cui t had hel d t hat , i n det er mi ni ng whet her

a pr i or Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on qual i f i es as a f el ony dr ug

of f ense, cour t s must l ook at t he maxi mum sent ence f aced by the

par t i cul ar def endant , r at her t han the hypot het i cal def endant

wi t h t he wor st cr i mi nal hi st or y. Pet . App. 34.

Pet i t i oner subsequent l y f i l ed an addi t i onal mot i on f or

l eave to amend hi s Sect i on 2255 mot i on, i n whi ch he noted t hat

t he Four t h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng en banc, had r ecent l y over r ul ed Har p

and J ones and agr eed wi t h Pr ui t t on t he test f or det er mi ni ng

whet her a pr i or Nor t h Car ol i na dr ug convi ct i on i s a f el ony dr ug

of f ense f or pur poses of Sect i on 802( 44) . See Si mmons, 649 F. 3d

at 245- 247. The Si mmons cour t expl ai ned t hat i n Carachur i -

Rosendo v. Hol der , 130 S. Ct . 2577, 2586- 2588 ( 2010) , t hi s Cour t

hel d t hat whet her a second or subsequent st at e convi ct i on f or

possessi on of a cont r ol l ed subst ance qual i f i es as a convi ct i on

f or an aggr avated f el ony under t he i mmi gr at i on l aws must be

det er mi ned based on t he recor d of t hat convi ct i on, consi der i ng

t he def endant s own cr i mi nal hi st or y. The Four t h Ci r cui t hel d

t hat Car achur i - Rosendo s r easoni ng under mi ned Har p s hol di ng

t hat whet her a pr i or convi ct i on const i t ut ed a f el ony dr ug

of f ense shoul d be determi ned by consi der i ng t he maxi mum

sent ence t hat coul d have been i mposed f or t hat of f ense on a

hypot het i cal def endant wi t h t he wor st possi bl e cr i mi nal hi st or y.


10/22

8

See Si mmons, 649 F. 3d at 245- 247. The Si mmons cour t t her ef ore

hel d that a def endant has not been convi ct ed of a f el ony dr ug

of f ense when, based on hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y and mi t i gat i ng or

aggr avat i ng f actors, t he maxi mum sent ence he f aced was l ess t han

one year of i mpr i sonment . I d. at 241- 245.

b. On J une 12, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued a

memor andum opi ni on and or der denyi ng t he cl ai ms i n pet i t i oner s

or i gi nal Sect i on 2255 mot i on on t he mer i t s ( Pet . App. 16- 26) and

denyi ng pet i t i oner s mot i ons f or l eave t o amend on the gr ound

t hat t hey wer e unt i mel y ( i d. at 7- 16) . The cour t di d not

r equest t he vi ews of t he gover nment on pet i t i oner s mot i ons t o

amend, and t he gover nment di d not f i l e any response t o t hose

mot i ons.

Wi t h r espect t o the mot i ons t o amend, t he di st r i ct cour t ,

ci t i ng Si mmons, observed t hat i t appear s t hat pet i t i oner woul d

have no qual i f yi ng pr edi cat e of f enses f or pur poses of Sect i on

841( b) ( 1) ( A) wer e he t o be sent enced t oday. Pet . App. 8 n. 2.

The cour t concl uded, however , t hat pet i t i oner s mot i ons t o amend

wer e unt i mel y under Sect i on 2255( f ) . The cour t expl ai ned t hat

t he mot i ons were f i l ed more than one year af t er t he j udgment had

become f i nal , see 28 U. S. C. 2255( f ) ( 1) , and t he cl ai m di d not

r el at e[ ] back t o t he cl ai ms i n hi s t i mel y f i l ed Sect i on 2255

mot i on. Pet . App. 14- 16; see Mayl e v. Fel i x, 545 U. S. 644, 659

( 2005) ( r el at i on back depends on a common cor e of operat i ve


11/22

9

f act s bet ween t he or i gi nal and l at er - asser t ed cl ai ms) . The

cour t al so hel d t hat pet i t i oner s sent enci ng cl ai m was not

t i mel y under Sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat a pr i soner

may f i l e a mot i on wi t hi n one year of t he dat e that t hi s Cour t

i ssues a deci si on r ecogni zi ng a new r i ght t hat i s r et r oact i vel y

appl i cabl e t o cases on col l at er al r evi ew. Pet . App. 11.

The di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o i ssue a cer t i f i cat e of

appeal abi l i t y (COA) on t he gr ound t hat r easonabl e j ur i st s woul d

not f i nd t he cour t s di sposi t i on of t he cl ai ms debat abl e. Pet .

App. 26; see 28 U. S. C. 2253( c) ( 2) ; Sl ack v. McDani el , 529 U. S.

473, 484 ( 2000) .

4. Pet i t i oner r equest ed a COA f r om t he cour t of appeal s

wi t h r espect t o hi s cl ai ms t hat Pr ui t t and Si mmons est abl i shed

t hat he shoul d not have been subj ect t o a 20- year mandatory

mi ni mum and t hat t r i al counsel was i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o

r ai se t hat cl ai m at sent enci ng. 2 Pet . App. 2- 3. The cour t of

appeal s decl i ned t o i ssue a COA, concl udi ng t hat j ur i st s of

r eason woul d not debat e t he di st r i ct cour t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng

t hat pet i t i oner s mot i ons t o amend hi s Sect i on 2255 mot i on were

2 The cour t of appeal s appear s t o have i nt er pr et edpet i t i oner s mot i on f or a COA as r ai si ng onl y the i nef f ect i ve-assi st ance cl ai m. Pet . App. 2- 3. Li ber al l y const r ued, however ,pet i t i oner s pr o se r equest f or a COA r ai sed bot h cl ai ms. SeePet . Appl i cat i on Request f or a Cer t i f i cat e of Appeal abi l i t y 2,No. 12- 5847 ( Aug. 27, 2012) ; Pet . 5- 6.


12/22

10

t i me- bar r ed. I d. at 3- 5. The cour t f ur t her hel d t hat

pet i t i oner was not ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of t he

l i mi t at i ons per i od because he f ai l ed t o show an ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ance pr event ed t i mel y f i l i ng of hi s amended cl ai m. I d.

at 4; see Hol l and v. Fl or i da, 130 S. Ct . 2549, 2562 ( 2010) . The

cour t al so r ej ect ed pet i t i oner s ar gument t hat hi s act ual [ ]

i nnocen[ ce] of t he 20- year mandatory mi ni mum sent ence pr ovi ded

an i ndependent basi s f or equi t abl y t ol l i ng t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons. Pet . App. 5.

DI SCUSSI ON

Pet i t i oner cont ends ( Pet . 7- 16) t hat t he l ower cour t s er r ed

i n decl i ni ng t o i ssue a COA on hi s Si mmons/ Prui t t sent enci ng

cl ai m and hi s cl ai m t hat t r i al counsel was i nef f ect i ve f or

f ai l i ng t o r ai se t hat cl ai m. Pl enar y r evi ew of t he cour t of

appeal s deni al of a COA i s not warr ant ed. The government

agr ees wi t h pet i t i oner , however , t hat t he l ower cour t s er r ed i n

decl i ni ng t o i ssue pet i t i oner a COA t o al l ow hi m t o appeal hi s

Si mmons/ Pr ui t t cl ai m t hat t he 20- year mandat or y mi ni mum was

i mposed i n er r or . Wi t h r espect t o t hat cl ai m, t he Cour t shoul d

gr ant t he pet i t i on, vacat e t he cour t of appeal s j udgment , and

r emand t he case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t he

posi t i on expr essed i n t hi s br i ef . The cour t of appeal s

cor r ect l y decl i ned t o i ssue a COA wi t h r espect t o pet i t i oner s


13/22

11

i nef f ect i ve- assi st ance cl ai m, and t he pet i t i on shoul d be deni ed

wi t h r espect t o t hat cl ai m.

1. A f eder al pr i soner seeki ng t o appeal t he deni al of a

mot i on t o vacat e hi s sent ence under Sect i on 2255 must obt ai n a

COA. See 28 U. S. C. 2253( c) ( 1) ( B) . To obt ai n such a

cer t i f i cat e, t he pr i soner must make a subst ant i al showi ng of

t he deni al of a const i t ut i onal r i ght . 28 U. S. C. 2253( c) ( 2) .

Wher e, as her e, a di st r i ct cour t deni es a cl ai m r ai sed i n a

Sect i on 2255 mot i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds, t he pr i soner must

make t wo t hr eshol d showi ngs: [ 1] t hat j ur i st s of r eason woul d

f i nd i t debat abl e whet her t he [ Sect i on 2255 mot i on] st at es a

val i d cl ai m of t he deni al of a const i t ut i onal r i ght and [ 2] t hat

j ur i st s of r eason woul d f i nd i t debat abl e whet her t he di st r i ct

cour t was cor r ect i n i t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng. Gonzal ez v.

Thal er , 132 S. Ct . 641, 648 ( 2012) ( quot i ng Sl ack v. McDani el ,

529 U. S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ) .

2. Pet i t i oner can make a subst ant i al showi ng t hat he was

subj ect ed t o an er r oneous mandatory mi ni mum sentence and t he

r esul t i ng mandat or y 20- year t er m of i mpr i sonment vi ol at es hi s

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o due pr ocess. He can al so show t hat

r easonabl e j ur i st s woul d debat e t he cor r ect ness of t he l ower

cour t s sua spont e di smi ssal of pet i t i oner s sent enci ng cl ai m on

t i mel i ness gr ounds.


14/22

12

a. Pet i t i oner r ecei ved a mandat or y sent ence of 20 year s of

i mpr i sonment under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) because he had a

pr i or convi ct i on t hat t he sent enci ng cour t cl assi f i ed as a

f el ony dr ug of f ense - - i . e. , a dr ug- r el at ed of f ense

puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment f or more than one year , 21 U. S. C.

802( 44) . When t he sent ence was i mposed, t he Si xt h Ci r cui t had

not addr essed how t o determi ne whether a pr i or Nort h Carol i na

convi ct i on qual i f i ed as a f el ony dr ug of f ense when a

hypot het i cal wor st of f ender coul d have r ecei ved a sent ence i n

excess of one year f or t he of f ense. But pet i t i oner s sent ence

was consi st ent wi t h t he Four t h Ci r cui t s appr oach. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Har p, 406 F. 3d 242, 246 ( 4t h Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 546

U. S. 919 ( 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 195 F. 3d 205 ( 4t h Ci r .

1999) , cer t . deni ed, 529 U. S. 1029 ( 2000) .

I n 2008, however , t he Si xth Ci r cui t di sagr eed wi t h t he

Four t h Ci r cui t s appr oach i n Har p and hel d t hat a def endant s

sent enci ng exposur e i n a pr i or convi ct i on must be j udged based

on t he r ecor d of t hat convi ct i on, consi der i ng t he def endant s

own cr i mi nal hi st or y. Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ui t t , 545 F. 3d 416

( 2008) . Under Pr ui t t , i f t he par t i cul ar def endant di d not f ace

a sent ence of mor e than one year based on hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y,

hi s convi ct i on does not qual i f y as a f el ony dr ug of f ense f or

pur poses of Sect i on 802( 44) . I d. at 422- 425. Ther eaf t er , i n

Uni t ed St ates v. Si mmons, 649 F. 3d 237 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( en


15/22

13

banc) , t he Four t h Ci r cui t over r ul ed Har p and adopt ed Pr ui t t s

appr oach.

Prui t t and Si mmons ar ose on di r ect r evi ew. The Si xt h

Ci r cui t has not had occasi on t o deci de whet her Pr ui t t s r ul e

appl i es r et r oact i vel y t o cases on col l at er al r evi ew. The Four t h

Ci r cui t has hel d, however , t hat Si mmons i s r et r oact i vel y

appl i cabl e on col l at er al r evi ew. Mi l l er v. Uni t ed St at es, 735

F. 3d 141, 145- 146 ( 2013) . As t he Four t h Ci r cui t expl ai ned,

Si mmons announced a new subst ant i ve r ul e of st atut ory

const r uct i on t hat appl i es ret r oact i vel y because t he deci si on

cl ar i f i ed t hat cer t ai n Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i ons do not

qual i f y as pr edi cat e f el oni es f or pur poses of f eder al l aw. I d.

at 146. As a r esul t , Si mmons narr owed t he cl ass of persons who

can be subj ect t o t he sent enci ng enhancement s set f or t h i n

Sect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) . See Schr i r o v. Summer l i n, 542 U. S.

348, 353 ( 2004) ( subst ant i ve r ul es i ncl ude t hose t hat

pr ohi bi t [ ] t he i mposi t i on of puni shment on a par t i cul ar cl ass

of per sons) . That r easoni ng woul d appl y equal l y t o Pr ui t t ,

whi ch announced t he same r ul e as Si mmons. Cf . Uni t ed St ates v.

J ones, 689 F. 3d 621, 625- 626 ( 6th Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng t hat Begay

v. Uni t ed St at es, 553 U. S. 137 ( 2008) , whi ch hel d t hat a st at e

convi ct i on f or dr unk dr i vi ng i s not a vi ol ent f el ony f or

pur poses of t he reci di vi st sent enci ng enhancement Ar med Career


16/22

14

Cr i mi nal s Act , announced a subst ant i ve r ul e of st at ut or y

const r uct i on t hat i s r et r oact i ve t o cases on col l at er al r evi ew) .

Thus, under t he approach adopt ed i n Pr ui t t and Si mmons,

pet i t i oner i s cor r ect t hat he di d not have a pr i or convi ct i on

f or a f el ony dr ug of f ense and t hat he shoul d not have been

subj ect t o a 20- year mandatory mi ni mum sent ence under Sect i on

841(b) ( 1) (A) ( i i i ) .

b. The er r oneous i mposi t i on of a mandatory mi ni mum

sent ence i s a const i t ut i onal er r or suf f i ci ent t o suppor t

i ssuance of a COA. See 28 U. S. C. 2253( c) ( 2) . A def endant

convi ct ed of a dr ug of f ense under Sect i on 841 i nvol vi ng t he

quant i t i es of dr ugs at i ssue her e, wi t h no qual i f yi ng pr i or

f el ony dr ug of f ense[ s] , or di nar i l y woul d have f aced a

st at ut or y sent enci ng r ange of t en year s t o l i f e. 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) ( 2000) . Pet i t i oner , however , was subj ect t o a

mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence of 20 year s of i mpr i sonment based on

t he sent enci ng cour t s concl usi on t hat pet i t i oner had a pr i or

f el ony dr ug of f ense. That concl usi on i s er r oneous under

Pr ui t t , and t he er r or i s a subst ant i ve one t hat may be r ai sed on

col l at er al r evi ew. The er r or al so pr oduced a due pr ocess

vi ol at i on by depr i vi ng t he sent enci ng cour t of di scret i on t o

i mpose a l ower sent ence ( between t en year s and l i f e) af t er

consi der i ng al l of t he mi t i gat i ng and aggr avat i ng f act or s

sur r oundi ng t he of f ense. Cf . Gar dner v. Fl or i da, 430 U. S. 349,


17/22

15

358 ( 1977) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( [ T] he sent enci ng pr ocess, as

wel l as t he t r i al i t sel f , must sat i sf y t he r equi r ement s of t he

Due Pr ocess Cl ause. ) .

Thi s Cour t has hel d t hat a si mi l ar er r or - - t he er r oneous

i mposi t i on of a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence under st ate l aw and

t he r esul t i ng depr i vat i on of sent enci ng di scret i on - - vi ol at ed

due pr ocess. I n Hi cks v. Okl ahoma, 447 U. S. 343 ( 1980) , Hi cks

r ecei ved a mandat ory 40- year sentence t hat was l ater shown t o be

er r oneous under st at e l aw. I d. at 345- 346. The st at e cour t

never t hel ess af f i r med Hi cks 40- year sent ence on t he gr ound t hat

i t was wi t hi n t he range of puni shment t hat coul d have been

i mposed i n any event . I d. at 345. Thi s Cour t r ever sed,

hol di ng that t he er r oneous mandat or y mi ni mum vi ol at ed Hi cks due

pr ocess r i ght s because Hi cks ha[ d] a subst ant i al and l egi t i mat e

expect at i on t hat he [ woul d] be depr i ved of hi s l i ber t y onl y to

t he ext ent det er mi ned by the j ur y i n t he exer ci se of i t s

st at ut or y di scret i on, and t hat l i ber t y i nt er est i s one t hat t he

Four t eent h Amendment pr eser ves agai nst arbi t r ary depr i vat i on by

t he St at e. 3 I d. at 346 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n l i ght of Hi cks,

r easonabl e j ur i st s consi der i ng pet i t i oner s mandat or y mi ni mum

3 Al t hough t he sent encer t hat was i mpr oper l y depr i ved of al l

di scret i on i n Hi cks was t he j ur y, Hi cks i s not , however ,l i mi t ed t o i mposi t i on of sent ences by j ur i es. Pr at er v.Maggi o, 686 F. 2d 346, 350 n. 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 1982) .


18/22

16

20- year sent ence woul d f i nd i t at l east debat abl e t hat t he

sent enci ng cour t s er r oneous depr i vat i on of al l di scret i on t o

i mpose a l esser sent ence vi ol at ed due pr ocess.

c. Pet i t i oner can al so show t hat j ur i st s of r eason woul d

f i nd i t debat abl e whet her t he l ower cour t s wer e cor r ect i n

[ t hei r ] pr ocedur al r ul i ng[ s] . Gonzal ez, 132 S. Ct . at 648.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat pet i t i oner s sent enci ng

chal l enge was t i me- barr ed because he sought t o add t he cl ai m

wel l af t er t he expi r at i on of t he one- year st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons

pr ovi ded i n Sect i on 2255. Pet . App. 3, 7- 16. The cour t r ai sed

t hat def ense sua spont e, wi t hout i nvi t i ng t he gover nment t o

r espond t o pet i t i oner s sent enci ng cl ai m, whi ch he r ai sed i n

mot i ons t o amend hi s Sect i on 2255 mot i on af t er t he government

had f i l ed i t s r esponse t o t he cl ai ms asser t ed i n pet i t i oner s

i ni t i al Sect i on 2255 mot i on. And t he cour t of appeal s af f i r med

t he di st r i ct cour t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng wi t hout r equest i ng a

r esponse f r om t he gover nment .

Al t hough Sect i on 2255 s st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons i s a non-

j ur i sdi ct i onal af f i r mat i ve def ense t hat t he gover nment bear s t he

bur den of assert i ng, t he cour t s had di scr et i on t o r ai se t he

i ssue on t hei r own mot i on. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 198,

205 ( 2006) ( st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons) ; see al so Caspar i v. Bohl en,

510 U. S. 383, 389 ( 1994) ( non- r et r oact i vi t y) ; Tr est v. Cai n, 522

U. S. 87, 89 ( 1997) ( pr ocedur al def aul t ) . Reasonabl e j ur i st s


19/22

17

coul d concl ude, however , t hat t he l ower cour t s abused t hei r

di scret i on by r ai si ng t he def ense wi t hout f i r st af f or di ng t he

gover nment an oppor t uni t y t o opi ne on t he pr opr i et y of doi ng so.

As t hi s Cour t r ecent l y expl ai ned, a f eder al cour t does not have

car t e bl anche t o depar t f r om t he pr i nci pl e of par t y pr esent at i on

basi c t o our adver sar y syst em, and a cour t may choose t o rai se

t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense sua spont e onl y wher e t he

St at e does not st r at egi cal l y wi t hh[ o] l d t he def ense or cho[ o] se

t o r el i nqui sh i t , and wher e t he pet i t i oner i s accor ded a f ai r

oppor t uni t y t o pr esent hi s posi t i on. Wood v. Mi l yar d, 132 S.

Ct . 1826, 1833- 1834 ( 2012) . Accor di ngl y, when t he government

del i ber at el y and consci ousl y decl i nes t o asser t a st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons def ense, [ i ] t woul d be an abuse of di scret i on * * *

f or a cour t t o addr ess t he def ense and t her eby over r i de a

St at e s del i ber at e wai ver . I bi d.

The l ower cour t s t hus er r ed by not af f or di ng t he gover nment

t he oppor t uni t y t o expr ess i t s vi ews on t he pr opr i et y of r ai si ng

t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons def ense. Had t he cour t s done so, t he

government woul d have had an oppor t uni t y t o deci de whet her t he

i nt er est s of j ust i ce counsel ed i n f avor of wai vi ng t he def ense

and per mi t t i ng t he l ower cour t s t o r each t he mer i t s of

pet i t i oner s cl ai m. See, e. g. , Mungr o v. Uni t ed St at es, Nos.

5: 11cv141RLV & 5: 04cr 18RLVCH1, 2013 WL 6800822, at *6- *7

& n. 3 ( W. D. N. C. Dec. 23, 2013) ( gr ant i ng Sect i on 2255 mot i on t o


20/22

18

vacate the pr i soner s mandatory l i f e sent ence on Si mmons

gr ounds, and not i ng that t he government had wai ved r el i ance on

t he st at ut e- of - l i mi t at i ons def ense) ; St ur vi dant v. Uni t ed

Stat es, Nos. 3: 12cv66FDW & 3: 09cr 39FDW6, 2013 WL 6669025,

at *1, *3 ( W. D. N. C. Dec. 18, 2013) ( gr ant i ng Si mmons r el i ef

af t er gover nment decl i ned t o enf or ce t he def endant s pl ea-

agr eement wai ver of t he r i ght t o col l at er al l y at t ack hi s

sent ence) .

Because pet i t i oner can demonst r at e t hat j ur i st s of r eason

woul d f i nd i t debat abl e whet her he has asser t ed a val i d cl ai m

of t he deni al of a const i t ut i onal r i ght and whet her t he di st r i ct

cour t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng was cor r ect , Gonzal ez, 132 S. Ct . at

648, t he cour t of appeal s er r ed i n denyi ng a COA. Thi s Cour t

shoul d gr ant t he pet i t i on, vacate the j udgment bel ow, and r emand

t hi s case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

3. Pet i t i oner al so cont ends ( Pet . 9- 10) t hat t he l ower

cour t s shoul d have gr ant ed a COA on hi s cl ai m t hat t r i al counsel

was i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o chal l enge t he gover nment s

Sect i on 851 not i ce on t he gr ound t hat pet i t i oner s Nor t h

Car ol i na convi ct i on was not a f el ony dr ug of f ense. Pet i t i oner

cannot show t hat r easonabl e j ur i st s woul d f i nd t hat cl ai m

debat abl e. Pet i t i oner s t r i al counsel s per f or mance was not

def i ci ent because i t di d not f al l bel ow an obj ect i ve st andar d


21/22

19

of r easonabl eness. St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687

( 1984) .

I n 2003, when t he gover nment f i l ed i t s Sect i on 851 not i ce

and pet i t i oner was sent enced, Four t h Ci r cui t pr ecedent hel d t hat

pet i t i oner s Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on qual i f i ed as a f el ony

dr ug of f ense under Sect i on 802( 44) because a def endant wi t h t he

wor st cr i mi nal hi st or y coul d have r ecei ved a sent ence exceedi ng

one year . The gover nment s not i f i cat i on t hat i t i nt ended t o

r el y on t he Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on as a f el ony dr ug of f ense

suppor t i ng an enhanced sent ence was t heref ore consi st ent wi t h

t he deci si on of t he onl y appel l at e cour t t o have consi der ed t he

i ssue at t he t i me. The Si xth Ci r cui t had not addr essed t he

i ssue and di d not est abl i sh t hat pet i t i oner s Nor t h Car ol i na

convi ct i on was not a f el ony dr ug of f ense unt i l sever al year s

l at er . Because t her e i s no gener al dut y on t he par t of def ense

counsel t o ant i ci pate changes i n t he l aw, Thompson v. Warden,

598 F. 3d 281, 288 ( 6t h Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Gr een v. J ohnson, 116

F. 3d 1115, 1125 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997) ) , pet i t i oner s counsel di d not

per f or m def i ci ent l y i n 2003 by f ai l i ng t o ant i ci pat e Pr ui t t and

chal l enge t he use of pet i t i oner s Nor t h Car ol i na convi ct i on t o

enhance hi s sent ence. See New v. Uni t ed St ates, 652 F. 3d 949,

952- 953 ( 8t h Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat counsel was not def i ci ent

f or f ai l i ng t o r ai se an ar gument not di r ect l y suppor t ed by

any cont r ol l i ng l egal aut hor i t y or cl ear l y f or eshadowed by


22/22

20

cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y, and ci t i ng si mi l ar cases) ; Fi el ds v.

Uni t ed St at es, 201 F. 3d 1025, 1026- 1028 ( 8t h Ci r . ) ( counsel was

not i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o ant i ci pat e a change i n t he l aw

t hat , at t he t i me, had been r ej ect ed i n anot her ci r cui t ) , cer t .

deni ed, 531 U. S. 885 ( 2000) ; see al so Al cor n v. Smi t h, 781 F. 2d

58, 62 ( 6t h Ci r . 1986) . Pet i t i oner i s t her ef or e not ent i t l ed t o

a COA on hi s i nef f ect i ve- assi st ance cl ai m, and pl enar y r evi ew of

t hat cl ai m i s unwar r ant ed.

CONCLUSI ON

Wi t h r espect t o pet i t i oner s Si mmons/ Pr ui t t cl ai m of

sent enci ng er r or , t he pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i shoul d

be gr ant ed, t he j udgment of t he cour t of appeal s vacat ed, and

t he case remanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs i n l i ght of t he

posi t i on expr essed i n t hi s br i ef . I n al l ot her r espect s, t he

pet i t i on shoul d be deni ed.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed.

DONALD B. VERRI LLI , J R.Sol i ci t or Gener al

MYTHI LI RAMANAct i ng Assi st ant

At t or ney Gener al

MI CHAEL A. ROTKERAt t or ney

J ANUARY 2014

Documents

Joseph Story v. United States (Solicitor General’s Brief)