Dorian Ragland v. United States, 784 F.3d 1213

Dorian Ragland was convicted of distribution of heroin resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and sentenced under the enhanced penalty for death resulting from the distribution.
On direct appeal this court remanded for reconsideration in light of Burrage v. United States, which held that where the drug distributed is not independently sufficient to cause death, the government must prove the victim’s use was a but-for cause of death to trigger the § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement.
On remand the government conceded it could not prove but-for causation and that Burrage applied retroactively, but argued the district court lacked authority to grant § 2255 relief because the enhanced sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum without the enhancement.
The district court relied on Sun Bear (en banc) to deny § 2255 relief, concluding a collateral attack based on an intervening change in law is not cognizable when the sentence remains within the statutory maximum; it denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
The government later revised its position, conceding that an error under Burrage affects the validity of the conviction (causation is an element) and thus is cognizable under § 2255.
The court granted a COA, vacated Ragland’s conviction for distribution resulting in death, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment and resentence on the lesser included offense of distribution of heroin.

Issue	Ragland’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether a Burrage error is cognizable in a § 2255 collateral attack	Burrage error undermines an element (causation) of the offense and thus challenges the conviction, making § 2255 relief cognizable	Initially: Sun Bear bars § 2255 relief when sentence remains within statutory maximum; later conceded Burrage affects conviction	The court held Burrage implicates the validity of the conviction; § 2255 cognizable; COA granted
Whether the government could prove but-for causation required by Burrage	Burrage requires proof that the drug use was a but-for cause of death; evidence did not meet that standard	Government conceded it could not prove but-for causation on remand	Court vacated the death-resulting conviction and directed entry of judgment for the lesser offense
Remedy when Burrage proof is lacking but evidence supports lesser offense	Vacate death-resulting conviction and resentence on distribution-only conviction	Government agreed entry of judgment and resentencing on lesser offense appropriate	Court remanded for judgment on the lesser included offense and resentencing
Procedural default of Burrage claim	Ragland’s procedural default argument not resolved here	Government expressly conceded Burrage applies retroactively; court did not decide procedural default	Court declined to address procedural default question on appeal

Ragland v. United States, 756 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2014) (remanding for consideration in light of Burrage)
Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding collateral attack on Guidelines enhancement based on intervening change in law not cognizable under § 2255 when sentence within statutory maximum)
United States v. Burrage, 747 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2014) (directing entry of judgment and resentencing on distribution offense where evidence supported distribution but not death-resulting conviction)
United States v. Brewer, 766 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing procedural default of Burrage claims)