Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that a federal prisoner sentenced under mandatory guidelines may use the § 2255(e) escape hatch to bring a § 2241 habeas petition claiming actual innocence of a career offender enhancement, where a retroactive change in law (Mathis/Descamps) means his prior conviction no longer qualifies as a predicate controlled substance offense. The court ruled that such a claim is one of actual innocence of a noncapital sentence, not mere legal insufficiency, and that the petitioner lacked an unobstructed procedural shot because the claim was foreclosed by precedent at the time of his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion and cannot be raised in a second or successive § 2255 motion. The court also clarified that Mathis and Descamps apply retroactively when reviewing a criminal judgment in a § 2241 petition or first § 2255 motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a claim of actual innocence of a noncapital sentence based on a retroactive change in law that renders a predicate conviction not a predicate crime is cognizable under § 2241.
- Whether the petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim of actual innocence.
- Whether Mathis and Descamps apply retroactively in § 2241 or first § 2255 proceedings.
Holdings
- Allen has made a claim of actual innocence that permits jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition.
- Allen did not have an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim of actual innocence because it was foreclosed by existing precedent at the time of his direct appeal and § 2255 motion.
- Mathis and Descamps apply retroactively when a court reviews a criminal judgment in the course of addressing a § 2241 petition or a first § 2255 motion.
Key quotations
“We now reach that question and hold that Allen has made a claim of actual innocence that permits jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition.” (10)
“Allen did not have an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting his claim of actual innocence because it was foreclosed by existing precedent at the time of his direct appeal and § 2255 motion.” (13-14)
“We take the opportunity to clarify that Mathis and Descamps apply retroactively when a court reviews a criminal judgment in the course of addressing a § 2241 petition or a first § 2255 motion.” (15-16)
Factual background
In 1997, Allen pleaded guilty in federal district court in Connecticut to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, carrying a firearm, and felon in possession. Under mandatory sentencing guidelines, his sentence was enhanced as a career offender based on two prior Connecticut state convictions: one for two sales of marijuana (treated as a single conviction) and one for possession of narcotics. The marijuana conviction was under Connecticut General Statute 21a-277(a). The career offender enhancement increased his base offense level from 36 to 37, raising his sentencing range from 235-293 months to 262-327 months. He was sentenced to 322 months total. Allen's first § 2255 motion was denied in 2003. In 2017, he filed a § 2241 petition in Oregon, arguing that under Mathis and Descamps, the Connecticut marijuana conviction was not a 'controlled substance offense' under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, making him actually innocent of being a career offender. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Procedural history
Allen filed a § 2241 petition in Oregon district court, challenging his career offender enhancement. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing Marrero v. Ives. Allen appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for consideration of Allen's claim on the merits.