Darryl Buck v. Warden Allenwood LSCI
702 F. App'x 37
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Buck pleaded guilty in the E.D. Pa. to possession of a firearm by a felon; the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (§ 924(e)) and sentenced him to 180 months. Buck’s direct appeal and subsequent certiorari were denied.
- Buck filed a § 2255 motion (rejected) and later sought authorization for a second § 2255 based on intervening Supreme Court decisions (denied).
- Buck then filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania arguing his ACCA/career-criminal designation was invalid under Descamps (and later Mathis), challenging Pennsylvania drug statute divisibility and facts used to identify cocaine and maximum sentences for prior convictions.
- The Middle District dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction under the rule that § 2255 is the presumptive remedy and the § 2255 safety-valve is narrowly applied.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded Buck’s claims did not fit the narrow Dorsainvil/Okereke safety-valve (many claims were previously raised or could have been raised on direct appeal), and held Descamps did not change the result because Pennsylvania’s 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible and Shepard materials showed cocaine and ten-year maximums.
- The Third Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal and declined to reach Buck’s Mathis arguments because of appellate-notice technicalities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 is available because § 2255 is ‘‘inadequate or ineffective’’ to challenge Buck’s career-criminal designation | Buck: Descamps and related law show his prior Pennsylvania drug convictions do not qualify as “serious drug offense,” so § 2255 is inadequate | Government: § 2255 is the proper vehicle; the safety-valve applies only in rare cases (no prior opportunity to challenge) | Court: § 2255 not inadequate/ineffective; § 2241 relief unavailable because Buck had prior opportunities to raise these claims |
| Whether Descamps compels vacatur of the ACCA enhancement by forbidding reliance on underlying facts when statute is indivisible | Buck: Descamps undermines use of underlying facts to categorize his state convictions | Government: Descamps permits the modified categorical approach for divisible statutes; Pennsylvania statute is divisible | Court: Pennsylvania statute is divisible; Descamps does not help Buck; modified categorical approach and Shepard materials were properly used |
| Whether Shepard materials supported characterization of Buck’s prior offenses as cocaine offenses with 10-year maximums | Buck: District court improperly “guessed” about cocaine and misread maximum sentences | Government: Shepard/Sheppard materials showed cocaine and 10-year maximums for the convictions cited | Court: District court correctly relied on Shepard materials; Buck was properly classified as a career criminal |
| Whether Mathis or other later cases entitled Buck to relief (and whether appellate challenges to Mathis were preserved) | Buck (on reconsideration): Mathis supports his claim that the Pennsylvania statute is indivisible | Government: Buck’s notice of appeal was premature and he failed to file a new/amended notice after reconsideration denial | Court: Did not address Mathis merits due to procedural defect; Buck failed to preserve Mathis argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding certain facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarifying limits on the modified categorical approach and emphasizing element-focused analysis)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (actual innocence gateway can excuse procedural default in habeas cases)
- In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 safety-valve for prisoners with no prior opportunity to challenge conviction after intervening change in law)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (presumption that § 2255 is the correct remedy and narrow circumstances for § 2241 relief)
- Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 845 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of plenary review for § 2241 jurisdictional denials)
- United States v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding Pennsylvania § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible and applying the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Tucker, 703 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying the modified categorical approach to Pennsylvania possession-with-intent statute)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (defining the limited set of documents courts may consult to determine which statutory alternative formed the basis of a prior conviction)