872 F.3d 811
7th Cir.2017Background
- Freddie Camacho was convicted in 1998 of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a); the victim was later found dead and Camacho received life imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines cross‑reference to murder (U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(c)/(e)).
- Camacho’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied in 1999.
- Camacho filed a § 2255 motion in 2002 challenging authority to impose life imprisonment because murder was not charged; the district court and Fifth Circuit denied relief and COAs.
- After Alleyne and Burrage, Camacho sought leave to file a successive § 2255 in 2014 (denied) and then filed a § 2241 petition in the Western District of Wisconsin in 2015, arguing Burrage made his life sentence unlawful because the jury did not determine that his conduct caused the death.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition, finding Burrage inapplicable and that Camacho failed to satisfy the Davenport savings‑clause criteria allowing § 2241 relief in lieu of § 2255.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: Burrage does not apply to § 1201(a)’s “death results” language or to Camacho’s Guidelines cross‑reference, and Camacho failed to show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective under Davenport.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camacho may attack his sentence via § 2241 under the § 2255 savings clause | Burrage and Alleyne mean the jury must find the fact that "death results" beyond a reasonable doubt; § 2255 is inadequate so § 2241 is proper | § 2255 is the proper vehicle; Burrage does not apply to § 1201(a) or to Camacho’s Guidelines cross‑reference | Denied — Camacho cannot proceed under § 2241; § 2255 is not inadequate |
| Whether Burrage’s but‑for causation rule applies to 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) | Burrage’s holding on causation applies to any "death results" enhancement, including § 1201(a) | Burrage addressed drug‑distribution statute and limits to enhancements; § 1201(a) requires only that death results, not but‑for causation | Denied — Burrage’s but‑for requirement does not extend to § 1201(a) |
| Whether Alleyne/Apprendi-based jury‑finding claim is cognizable on collateral review via § 2241 | Alleyne/Apprendi require jury findings for facts increasing sentence; Camacho invokes those decisions to attack sentence | Alleyne/Apprendi are constitutional rules not shown to be retroactive on collateral review; thus cannot be the basis of Davenport savings relief | Denied — Alleyne/Apprendi claims are constitutional and not available via § 2241 under Davenport |
| Whether Camacho showed a miscarriage of justice warranting § 2241 relief | Camacho contends sentencing error deprived him of due process and increased sentence unlawfully | Government contends no cognizable sentencing error under applicable law and no showing of actual innocence or grave miscarriage | Denied — no showing of sentencing error or miscarriage of justice sufficient for Davenport relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (requires jury finding of facts that increase mandatory minimums)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (but‑for causation required for § 841(b)(1)(C) death‑result enhancement in drug cases)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing maximum punishment must be submitted to jury)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.) (criteria for invoking § 2255 savings clause to proceed under § 2241)
- Krieger v. United States, 842 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.) (Burrage is a substantive statutory‑interpretation decision that can be retroactive)