25 F.4th 526
7th Cir.2022Background
- Allen Brown pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted eight prior Missouri felony convictions, including two drug-sale convictions, leading to a 262-month ACCA sentence.
- Brown’s §2255 motion (post-Johnson) in the Eastern District of Missouri was denied because the Eighth Circuit treated his weapons-exhibiting conviction (Mo. Rev. Stat. §571.030.1(4)) as an ACCA violent felony.
- Relying on Mathis and In re Davenport, Brown filed a §2241 petition in the Seventh Circuit (the circuit of confinement) arguing Mathis eliminated enough predicates to defeat the ACCA enhancement.
- The government conceded the first two Davenport requirements (statutory claim and retroactivity); the remaining question was whether denying §2241 relief would be a miscarriage of justice (the third Davenport prong).
- Brown conceded that Eighth Circuit law governs but argued the Eighth Circuit had overlooked Missouri decisions that would lead to a different result; the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument.
- The Seventh Circuit applied Eighth Circuit precedent (including post-Mathis Hudson) and held the weapons-exhibiting statute remains a violent felony under the ACCA, so Brown still has three predicates and §2241 relief was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of §2241 under Davenport (miscarriage of justice prong) | Mathis eliminated enough ACCA predicates so denying §2241 would be a miscarriage of justice | Denial is not a miscarriage because at least three predicates remain | Court treated the prong as dependent on merits and reached merits; no miscarriage shown |
| Choice of law for Davenport petitions | Argues an exception where sister circuit overlooked state law should permit circuit-of-confinement law | Brown conceded circuit-of-conviction (Eighth) law controls; court also found no overlooked state authority | Court applied Eighth Circuit law based on Brown’s concession and declined to decide Davenport choice-of-law question |
| Status of Mo. Rev. Stat. §571.030.1(4) post-Mathis | Gheen shows the statute can apply without threatening those present, so it may not meet ACCA elements clause | Eighth Circuit (Pulliam/Hudson) and Missouri Supreme Court (Parkhurst) interpret the statute as involving threatened use of force | Court agreed with Eighth Circuit/Missouri Supreme Court: §571.030.1(4) satisfies the ACCA elements clause |
| Whether Brown has three ACCA predicates | Only two drug-sale convictions remain as clear predicates | Weapons-exhibiting conviction counts as a violent felony, giving at least three predicates | Held: Brown has three predicates; ACCA enhancement stands; §2241 denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified categorical approach; distinguish elements from means)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (permits §2241 in confinement circuit when §2255 second-or-successive limits foreclose statutory-interpretation relief)
- Chazen v. Marske, 938 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2019) (discussed Davenport choice-of-law issue and accepted government concession)
- United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2009) (pre-Mathis holding that Mo. Rev. Stat. §571.030.1(4) is an ACCA violent felony)
- United States v. Hudson, 851 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2018) (post-Mathis Eighth Circuit decision reaffirming §571.030.1(4) as a violent felony)
- State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. 1992) (Missouri Supreme Court treating weapon-flourishing as equivalent to assault and involving threatened physical force)