Ezell Gilbert v. United States
640 F.3d 1293
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gilbert was sentenced in 1997 under mandatory guidelines with a career-offender enhancement based on prior drug and weapon convictions.
- He pleaded guilty to crack cocaine and marijuana offenses; the government waived the §851 enhancement at sentencing.
- The district court sentenced him to 292 months for crack and 120 months concurrent for marijuana, within a range driven by career-offender status.
- On direct appeal, Gilbert challenged the “crime of violence” classification for purposes of §4B1.1; that challenge was rejected (Gilbert I).
- Amendment 706 (crack reductions) and retroactive Amendment 713 later prompted post-sentencing reconsideration; the district court denied relief under Amendment 706 and his §2255/§2241 options were pursued.
- The en banc court ultimately held that a federal prisoner may not obtain relief via §2241 for a pre-Booker guidelines miscalculation that did not exceed the statutory maximum, reinforcing finality and AEDPA constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §2255 savings clause allows §2241 relief for a pre-Booker guidelines miscalculation | Gilbert argues savings clause permits §2241 | Government argues savings clause does not override AEDPA bars | No; savings clause does not authorize §2241 for non-exceeding max miscalculations |
| Whether the AEDPA §2255(h) bar applies to Gilbert’s Begay/Archer claim | Gilbert seeks relief despite §2255(h) bar | Government maintains bar applies | §2255(h) bar prevents second/successive motions; savings clause cannot override |
| Whether finality interests bar relief despite mistaken sentence | Finality should yield to correct a wrongful sentence | Finality promotes stability and avoids endless collateral review | Finality interests prevail; relief denied |
| Whether Rule 60(b) could reopen and vacate the sentence | Motion 60(b) could be vehicle to reopen | Gonzalez and AEDPA principles preclude | Rule 60(b) relief not available; AEDPA controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (held DUI not a violent felony for ACCA parity; used to reinterpret career-offender scope)
- Archer v. United States, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (applied Begay to limit Archer guidance on career offender)
- United States v. Wofford, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (savings clause scope and finality considerations in AEDPA)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) as a vehicle for bypassing §2244(b) bar; applicable conceptually to §2255 by analogy)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1996) (suspension clause and second/ successive petitions framework)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (actual innocence exception applicable to death-sentence context; limited reach)
- Davenport v. United States, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (separation of sentencing errors from conviction-based relief; savings clause limits)
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (rejection of savings clause relief for sentencing claims)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (actual innocence of conviction vs. sentencing claims)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence related to construction of §924(c) 'use')
- Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997) (court discussed savings clause scope; later circuits adopted limits)