United States v. Foote
Decision Date | 27 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 13–7841.,13–7841. |
Citation | 784 F.3d 931 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Wesley Devon FOOTE, Defendant—Appellant, North Carolina Advocates For Justice, Amicus Supporting Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED:John Clark Fischer, Randolph & Fischer, Winston–Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Eagles Rand, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Jaclyn Lee DiLauro, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. ON BRIEF:Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Noell Tin, Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Neal Kumar Katyal, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge THACKER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge KEENAN joined.
Wesley Devon Foote (“Appellant”) appeals the district court's denial of his petition for collateral relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court concluded that Appellant's petition, which was based on the argument that his career offender designation was later nullified under our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc), does not present a claim that is cognizable on collateral review.
The language of § 2255 makes clear that not every alleged sentencing error can be corrected on collateral review. The Supreme Court has instructed that only those errors presenting a “fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice” are cognizable. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). We are not convinced that Appellant's pre-Simmons career offender designation meets this high bar. Neither Appellant's federal offense of conviction nor his state convictions qualifying him as a career offender have been vacated, he was sentenced under an advisory sentencing scheme, and we are hesitant to undermine the judicial system's interest in finality to classify a Sentencing Guidelines error as a fundamental defect. Therefore, we affirm the district court.
On July 13, 2006, Appellant pled guilty to three counts of distribution of crack cocaine after previously being convicted of a felony drug offense, a conviction that carried a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). On January 10, 2007, the district court found Appellant to be a “career offender” and sentenced him to 262 months in prison.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2005) (emphasis supplied). A “controlled substance offense” is defined as “a[ ] [drug] offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Id. § 4B1.2(b). Appellant's presentence investigation report (“PSR”) listed, inter alia, two North Carolina convictions for possession with intent to sell cocaine. For the first conviction, which occurred in 1995, Appellant was sentenced to 10–12 months in prison (the “1995 conviction”); for the second, which occurred in 2002, he was sentenced to 13–16 months in prison (the “2002 conviction”).
At the time of Appellant's federal sentencing, this court “determine[d] whether a conviction is for a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding one year [under North Carolina law,] [by] consider[ing] the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history.” United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir.2005) (second emphasis supplied). Appellant's 1995 conviction was for a Class H felony, see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90–95(a)(1), (b)(1) (2005), which carried a maximum aggravated sentence of well over 12 months in prison, id. § 15A–1340.17(c). Therefore, under Harp, Appellant was convicted of a crime punishable by a “prison term exceeding one year,” even though his actual sentence did not exceed one year.
Based on the 1995 and 2002 convictions, the PSR recommended that Appellant be designated a career offender, and the district court agreed. As a result, Appellant's offense level rose from 32 to 37 (with a subsequent three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility), and his advisory Guideline range jumped from 151–188 to 262–327 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(1).1 The district court sentenced Appellant at the bottom of the Guidelines range.
Trans. at 10, Foote, No. 1:06–cr–177 (filed Oct. 15, 2009), ECF No. 31. Foote appealed from the amended judgment, but we again affirmed. See United States v. Foote, 395 Fed.Appx. 49, 51 (4th Cir.2010). On January 21, 2011, Appellant filed a petition for collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, again arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender.2
Seven months later, while Appellant's petition was pending, this court decided United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc). In Simmons, this court addressed whether a certain North Carolina crime could serve as a predicate “felony drug offense” conviction for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Controlled Substance Act (the “CSA”). See id. at 249 ; see also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) ( ); id. § 802(44) ( ). Specifically, the court considered whether Simmons was entitled to relief because the crime that supported his sentencing enhancement—a North Carolina conviction for possession with intent to sell no more than 10 pounds of marijuana—was not an offense “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year” under the CSA. Simmons, 649 F.3d at 240–41.
Of course, at the time of Simmons's initial sentencing, Harp controlled. Following Harp, a Fourth Circuit panel initially rejected Simmons's challenge to his sentencing enhancement because North Carolina law dictated that the marijuana conviction could be a crime “punishable by a term exceeding one year” if two conditions were satisfied (even though they were not met in Simmons's case). See United States v. Simmons, 340 Fed.Appx. 141, 144 (4th Cir.2009). The Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration in light of Carachuri–Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 570, 576, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) ( ). See Simmons v. United States, 561 U.S. 1001, 130 S.Ct. 3455, 177 L.Ed.2d 1048 (2010). On remand, this court affirmed Simmons's sentence despite Carachuri. See United States v. Simmons, 635 F.3d 140, 146–47 (4th Cir.2011). The court then voted to rehear the case en banc.
On rehearing en banc, this court vacated Simmons's sentence and abrogated Harp in light of Carachuri. See Simmons, 649 F.3d at 239, 241. We held that because the state court that sentenced Simmons “never made the recidivist finding necessary to expose Simmons to a higher sentence,” the Government was “precluded from establishing that a conviction was for a qualifying offense” under the CSA. Id. at 243 (internal quotation marks omitted). Two years later, this court held that Simmons can be retroactively applied on collateral review because it “announced a new substantive rule.” Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141, 147 (4th Cir.2013). Miller explained, “The Simmons decision changed the way this Court determines whether prior convictions for certain lower-level North Carolina felonies are punishable by more than one year in prison.”Id. at 145.
Not surprisingly, Appellant amended his § 2255 p...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Link, Case No. 1:14–cr–76
...2255"by its terms ... does not allow for a court's consideration and correction of every alleged sentencing error." United States v. Foote , 784 F.3d 931, 936 (4th Cir. 2015). Instead, the statute "provides four avenues by which a petitioner can seek relief":[1] that the sentence was impose......
-
Kovari v. Brevard Extraditions, LLC
...or certainly correct." United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 431 (4th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds, U.S. v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015).A. DR. SUSI VASSALLO In challenging the admissibility of Dr. Vassallo's testimony in this case, Brevard raises several objections: (1)......
-
United States v. Ramirez, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 10-10008-WGY
...raised via Section 2255 motions. Gov't.'s Opp'n 14; seeSun Bearv. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir.2011) ; United Statesv. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 939 (4th Cir.2015) (collecting cases and concluding that there is no longer any Circuit decision "whereby a challenge to one's change in c......
-
Barnes v. United States
...10; [D.E. 168] 46–49. Barnes, however, cannot use section 2255 to attack his advisory guideline range. See, e.g., United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 935–36 (4th Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 283–84 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Barring extraordinary circumstances ... an error ......
-
Review Proceedings
...U.S. v. Folk, 954 F.3d 597, 604-05 (3d Cir. 2020) (sentence within advisory statutory maximum not reviewable under § 2255); U.S. v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 943 (4th Cir. 2015) (same); U.S. v. Clark, 284 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2002) (claim that sentence improperly enhanced not cognizable under......