Deangelo Whiteside v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23982
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Deangelo Whiteside pled guilty (2010) to possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g cocaine base and was sentenced to 210 months after the district court applied a career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1.
- Whiteside did not appeal; his conviction became final on August 3, 2010.
- In August 2011 the Fourth Circuit (en banc) decided United States v. Simmons, overruling prior circuit law on when certain prior state convictions qualify as predicate offenses for career-offender treatment.
- Whiteside filed a §2255 motion on May 18, 2012, arguing Simmons rendered his prior convictions non-predicate and that his sentence should be vacated or shortened.
- The district court dismissed the §2255 petition as untimely; a panel initially granted relief based on equitable tolling, but the en banc Fourth Circuit reversed and affirmed dismissal as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simmons is a "fact" under §2255(f)(4) that restarts the one-year limitations period | Simmons created a new factual predicate that tolled the limitations period; Whiteside filed within one year of Simmons | Simmons announced a change in law, not a newly discovered fact; §2255(f)(4) does not apply | Court held Simmons is a change in law, not a factual predicate; §2255(f)(4) does not reset the clock |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses Whiteside's untimely §2255 filing | Circuit law before Simmons made timely filing futile; equitable tolling should apply because the change was outside Whiteside's control | Futility of prevailing on the claim is not an ‘‘extraordinary circumstance’’; Whiteside could have filed timely despite unfavorable precedent | Court held equitable tolling unavailable: petitioner failed to show diligence and extraordinary external impediment |
| Whether Simmons should be applied to permit collateral relief after finality | Whiteside argued Simmons shows he was erroneously sentenced and merits resentencing | Government argued district court could reimpose same sentence and limitations bar controls remedy | Court declined to reach merits because petition was untimely and affirmed dismissal |
| Interaction of §2255(f)(3) and (f)(4) — proper vehicle for claims based on intervening legal decisions | Whiteside invoked (f)(4); argued Simmons functions like a new predicate fact | Court explained changes in law belong in (f)(3) when appropriate; allowing (f)(4) to cover changes in law would render (f)(3) superfluous | Court held legal changes do not qualify under (f)(4); (f)(3) addresses new legal rights from Supreme Court only |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (altered Fourth Circuit approach to when prior state convictions qualify as predicate offenses for career-offender status)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (vacatur of a predicate conviction can constitute a new "fact" under analogous habeas rules)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (presumption in favor of equitable tolling for habeas but only for extraordinary circumstances and diligent pursuit)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (futility does not constitute cause to excuse procedural defaults)
- Minter v. Beck, 230 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2000) (pre-Holland Fourth Circuit precedent rejecting futility as basis for tolling)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (interpreting consequences of certain state convictions and foreshadowing Simmons)
- Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (petitioners must raise potentially meritorious claims despite anticipated judicial hostility)