Butterworth v. United States
775 F.3d 459
1st Cir.2015Background
- Ryan Butterworth was convicted in 2007 of crack-cocaine offenses; sentencing involved a judge-found drug-quantity that produced a 20-year mandatory minimum rather than the 10-year floor tied to the seized quantity.
- At sentencing the judge attributed fifty grams (based on witness testimony) for mandatory-minimum calculation, increasing the statutory floor under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b).
- At the time of conviction and direct appeal, United States v. Harris permitted judges to find facts that increased mandatory minimums; Butterworth’s direct challenges were unsuccessful.
- In 2013 the Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States, holding any fact that increases a mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Butterworth filed a timely § 2255 motion after Alleyne; the district court denied relief but granted a COA limited to Alleyne’s retroactivity to initial collateral review.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding Alleyne announced a new rule but is not retroactively applicable to initial § 2255 petitions under Teague’s watershed exception, and Butterworth forfeited an equitable-tolling argument under § 2255(f)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne is a "new rule" for § 2255(f)(3) purposes | Alleyne is a new constitutional rule requiring jury findings for facts raising mandatory minimums | Conceded Alleyne is new | Held: Alleyne is a newly recognized right |
| Whether Alleyne is retroactively applicable on initial collateral review under Teague | Alleyne should apply retroactively to initial § 2255 petitions | Alleyne is not a watershed rule; Teague bars retroactivity | Held: Alleyne is not retroactive on initial collateral review |
| Whether courts other than the Supreme Court may decide retroactivity under § 2255(f)(3) | Butterworth implied courts can reach the question | Government argued Supreme Court must have made it retroactive for second/successive petitions, but appellate courts can decide initially | Held: Lower federal courts may decide retroactivity under § 2255(f)(3) on initial petitions |
| Whether equitable tolling under § 2255(f)(1) preserves Butterworth's claim | Butterworth argued equitable tolling made his § 2255(f)(1) filing timely | Government argued he forfeited the tolling claim by not raising it below | Held: Forfeited — equitable-tolling argument not preserved; COA limited to Alleyne issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases a mandatory minimum is an element for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (distinguished mandatory minimums from maximums; allowed judge-found facts to raise mandatory minimums)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework restricting retroactive application of new rules in collateral review; two exceptions)
- Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2003) (Apprendi held not retroactive on collateral review; relied on Teague)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (declined to make Ring retroactive; judicial factfinding did not so diminish accuracy as to require retroactivity)