Benjamin B. Kramer v. United States, 797 F.3d 493

Benjamin Kramer was convicted in 1988 of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) under 21 U.S.C. § 848 and of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846; he received life for the CCE conviction and 40 years for the conspiracy.
The jury was instructed that it need only unanimously find that Kramer committed at least three predicate felonies (a “continuing series”) but need not agree on which specific acts formed those predicates; the court also allowed consideration of offenses not listed in the indictment.
On direct appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed Kramer’s convictions; it later vacated the § 846 conviction (but not § 848) after Kramer’s first § 2255 motion in 1998, based on intervening Supreme Court precedent about double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court later decided Richardson v. United States, holding that juries must unanimously agree on the specific predicate offenses that constitute the continuing series element of a § 848 CCE conviction — the exact instruction Kramer had been given.
Kramer filed another § 2255 motion in 2014 seeking to vacate his § 848 conviction in light of Richardson; the district court dismissed it as a successive petition for which Kramer had not obtained circuit authorization.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Suggs (and related circuit precedent) controls: Kramer’s 2014 § 2255 motion is a second or successive petition and the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kramer’s 2014 § 2255 motion is “second or successive”	Kramer: Magwood means his motion is not successive because prior relief vacated a conviction or otherwise produced a new judgment, so he can file anew	Government/Respondent: Under Seventh Circuit precedent (Suggs/Dahler), Kramer’s motion challenges an undisturbed conviction and is therefore successive without appellate authorization	Court: Motion is successive; district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Richardson provides a retroactive basis to re-litigate the § 848 conviction via § 2255 now	Kramer: Richardson invalidates the jury instruction used at his trial, making his continued detention unfair	Government: Procedural bars (successive-petition rules) prevent review absent authorization regardless of Richardson	Court: Did not reach Richardson merits because jurisdictional successive-petition rule bars the motion

United States v. Kramer, 955 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1992) (Seventh Circuit opinion on Kramer’s direct appeal and predicate-offense analysis)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (conspiracy under § 846 is a lesser-included offense of CCE § 848 for double-jeopardy purposes)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (jury must unanimously agree on the specific predicate offenses forming the § 848 continuing series)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2010) ("second or successive" habeas inquiry is judgment-focused; a new sentence/judgment can permit a new petition)
Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 2013) (Seventh Circuit held Magwood did not displace prior circuit precedent; motions challenging an undisturbed conviction after earlier § 2255 relief remain successive)