Brian Mackey v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 190
11th Cir.2014Background
- Mackey was indicted for being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and, based on four prior Florida convictions (including two concealed-firearm convictions), the government sought an ACCA (§ 924(e)) sentence that carried a 15-year mandatory minimum; he pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 months.
- His PSI and sentencing applied the ACCA/§ 4B1.4 enhancement, producing a guidelines range driven by § 924(e); supervised release term set at 4 years.
- Mackey filed a direct appeal (raising only a suppression issue) and an initial § 2255 motion (unrelated to the ACCA issue); both were denied. A later attempt to seek resentencing under Begay/Archer was dismissed as a successive § 2255.
- Mackey then filed a § 2241 petition invoking the § 2255(e) savings clause, arguing that Begay (as extended by Canty/Archer) shows his Florida concealed-weapon convictions are not ACCA violent felonies, so his sentence exceeds the § 924(a) 10-year statutory maximum.
- The government conceded merit; the district court denied relief relying on McKinney/Gilbert reasoning that the savings clause did not apply because Mackey claimed innocence of the sentence rather than the underlying offense.
- The Eleventh Circuit applied the five-part Bryant test, held all five requirements were met, vacated the district court denial, and instructed reduction of Mackey’s prison term to the § 924(a) statutory maximum of 10 years and supervised release to 3 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(e) savings clause allows Mackey to bring a § 2241 challenge to his ACCA-enhanced sentence | Mackey: Begay/Archer/Canty retroactively nullify circuit precedent that made his prior Fla. §790.01 convictions ACCA predicates, so §2255 was inadequate and §2241 is available | Government: (here) conceded merit; district court earlier argued savings clause inapplicable where claimant challenges sentence rather than underlying conviction | Court: Savings clause applies; Mackey met Bryant five-part test and may proceed under §2241 |
| Whether Begay (and its extension by Canty/Archer) overturned prior Eleventh Circuit precedent classifying Fla. concealed-weapons convictions as violent felonies | Mackey: Begay’s limit on predicate offenses, as extended in Canty/Archer, removes these convictions as ACCA predicates | District court (McKinney/Gilbert approach): savings clause requires actual innocence of the underlying offense, not mere sentencing error | Court: Begay (and Canty) did overturn Hall; the change applies and invalidates the ACCA enhancement here |
| Retroactivity / adequacy of §2255 as remedy | Mackey: Begay announces a new rule that is retroactive on collateral review, so initial §2255 remedy was inadequate for this claim | Opposing view: procedural barriers (successive §2255 limits) block §2255 relief | Court: Begay’s rule is retroactive and the §2255 process was inadequate to vindicate this claim, satisfying Bryant factors |
| Appropriate remedy for pure Begay error (resentencing vs simple reduction) | Mackey: relief via §2241 should correct sentence to statutory maximum; no need for resentencing | Government/district court positions varied; concurrence favored granting writ without resentencing where defendant already served >10 years | Court: Instructed district court to reduce the sentence to the 10-year statutory maximum and supervised release to 3 years (vacate and remand for that relief) |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits scope of ACCA "violent felony" clause)
- United States v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (applies Begay to Florida concealed-weapon offense)
- Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (articulates five-part test for savings-clause §2241 relief based on Begay error)
- United States v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1996) (prior Eleventh Circuit precedent holding Fla. concealed-weapon offense was an ACCA predicate)
- Williams v. Warden, 713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (standards for §2241 via savings clause; standard of review)
- United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (Eleventh Circuit interpretation relevant to Begay application)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court discussed limits on savings clause relief relied on by district court)