Abdul-Aziz Muhammad v. Eric Wilson
14-7735
| 4th Cir. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Abdul‑Aziz Rashid Muhammad, a federal prisoner, appealed dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denial of a Rule 59(e) motion.
- Muhammad sought to challenge his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and related § 924(c) gun conviction via § 2241, arguing § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.
- He argued that Supreme Court decisions (Descamps and Mathis) changed substantive law so that conspiracy under § 371 is no longer a "crime of violence," thus § 924(c) could not apply.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the In re Jones gatekeeping test for using § 2241 when § 2255 is inadequate.
- The court concluded Descamps and Mathis only clarified application of the categorical/modified categorical approaches, not a substantive change in law.
- Court affirmed dismissal of the § 2241 petition, denied appointment of counsel, granted IFP, and denied the Rule 59(e) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255 is inadequate to permit a § 2241 challenge | Muhammad: Descamps/Mathis changed substantive law making § 371 not a crime of violence, so § 2255 remedies are inadequate | Respondent/District Ct: Descamps/Mathis clarified categorical approach, did not change substantive law; § 2255 remains adequate | Court: § 2255 is not inadequate; § 2241 relief unavailable under Jones test |
| Whether Descamps/Mathis announced a new substantive rule | Muhammad: Those decisions altered substantive law as to what offenses qualify as crimes of violence | Government: The cases reiterated/clarified when to apply categorical or modified categorical approaches, not a new substantive rule | Court: Descamps/Mathis did not announce a substantive change; they clarified existing precedent |
| Applicability of In re Jones three‑part test | Muhammad: Claimed he met Jones because of new Supreme Court decisions | Government: Jones not satisfied because there was no new substantive rule post‑conviction | Court: Muhammad failed to satisfy Jones requirements |
| Relief via § 2241 and need for counsel | Muhammad: Sought § 2241 relief and appointment of counsel | Government: No entitlement to § 2241 relief; counsel unnecessary | Court: Denied § 2241 relief and appointment of counsel; granted IFP |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (establishes when § 2255 is inadequate, permitting § 2241 collateral attack)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulates categorical approach for determining prior offenses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits evidence courts may consult when applying categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified when categorical vs. modified categorical approach applies)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (further clarified application of categorical approach)
- United States v. Royal, 731 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2013) (discusses Descamps clarification of the modified categorical approach)