Dean Guenther v. Matthew Marske, 997 F.3d 735

Background

In 2005 Dean Guenther was convicted in Minnesota of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior state convictions (two burglaries and a kidnapping), producing a 327‑month sentence.
His direct appeal and a 2008 § 2255 motion failed in the Eighth Circuit; his kidnapping predicate was later lost when Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause.
In 2017 Guenther filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Western District of Wisconsin invoking Mathis and Eighth Circuit precedent (McArthur) to argue that Minnesota burglary is not a categorical match to federal "generic burglary," so his ACCA enhancement was unlawful; the district court denied relief.
The Seventh Circuit had by then decided Van Cannon (Minnesota burglary is broader than generic burglary) and in Chazen articulated the saving‑clause (§ 2255(e)) test that permits § 2241 relief in narrow statutory‑interpretation, retroactivity, and miscarriage‑of‑justice circumstances.
The Seventh Circuit here applied Chazen and Van Cannon, held Guenther met the saving‑clause requirements, concluded Minnesota burglary is not an ACCA predicate under Seventh Circuit law, and determined the ACCA enhancement was a miscarriage of justice.
The court reversed the district court, directed grant of § 2241 relief, and remanded for transfer to the District of Minnesota for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guenther may use § 2241 via the § 2255(e) saving clause	Mathis is a statutory‑interpretation decision unavailable at time of § 2255; claim is retroactive and fits Chazen’s saving‑clause test	Remedy under § 2255 is exclusive; § 2241 is unavailable	Yes — under Chazen/Beason plaintiff satisfies the three saving‑clause requirements (statutory decision, retroactivity, miscarriage of justice)
Whether Minnesota burglary convictions qualify as ACCA "violent felonies"	They do not — Mathis/Van Cannon show the Minnesota statute is indivisible and broader than generic burglary	They do — Eighth Circuit precedent (McArthur/Crumble) previously treated Minnesota burglary differently; government initially argued Seventh Circuit law applies but later changed position	Under Seventh Circuit precedent (Van Cannon) Minnesota burglary is not an ACCA predicate; convictions do not qualify
Choice‑of‑law: which circuit’s law governs the merits (circuit of conviction vs. confinement)	Seventh Circuit law (circuit of confinement) should apply; Chazen left question open but favored applying the position the government took below	Government argued on appeal it needs favorable law in both circuits; earlier argued Seventh Circuit law governs	Court enforces government’s earlier litigation position and applies Seventh Circuit law (Van Cannon/Chazen)
Whether the erroneous ACCA enhancement amounts to a "miscarriage of justice" warranting saving‑clause relief	The ACCA enhancement is a fundamental sentencing defect because Minnesota burglary is not a predicate	No miscarriage shown under controlling law	Yes — erroneous ACCA sentence is a miscarriage of justice; habeas relief ordered and case remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (clarified categorical approach and divisibility analysis)
McArthur, United States v., 850 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2017) (held Minnesota burglary indivisible and not an ACCA predicate)
Van Cannon v. United States, 890 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2018) (Seventh Circuit held Minnesota burglary broader than generic burglary)
Chazen v. Marske, 938 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2019) (articulated saving‑clause test and applied circuit law of confinement)
Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019) (clarified intent element for remaining‑in generic burglary)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defined generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (distinguished divisible statutes from indivisible ones in categorical approach)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits evidence courts may consult when applying categorical/divisibility tests)
Beason v. Marske, 926 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2019) (used in formulating the saving‑clause three‑part test)
Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (recognizes erroneous ACCA enhancement as a miscarriage of justice)