Gilbert v. United States
625 F.3d 716
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ezell Gilbert was sentenced in 1997 under a career-offender-guideline calculation that treated a 1994 concealed weapon conviction as a crime of violence, yielding a 292–365 month range instead of a lower advisory range.
- Gilbert's § 851 notice flagged three prior felony drug convictions; he pleaded guilty without applying the enhanced mandatory life sentence, as part of a plea agreement.
- He challenged the career-offender designation on direct appeal; the panel affirmed in Gilbert I (1998) and denied rehearing, while the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1999.
- Amendment 706 (crack-cocaine base reductions) and retroactive Amendment 713 later allowed a potential reduction, but Gilbert was not eligible due to the career-offender status still applying at the time of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.
- Gilbert sought relief years later, arguing Begay v. United States and Archer v. United States changed the law governing what constitutes a “crime of violence” and thus the career-offender calculation; he claimed the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) allowed a § 2241 petition.
- The district court and panel denied relief, and the en banc court affirmed, holding the savings clause cannot be used to attack guideline miscalculations that do not push the sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2255(e) savings clause permits a § 2241 challenge to a pre-Booker guidelines miscalculation. | Gilbert argues the savings clause should allow review. | The government contends the savings clause cannot override AEDPA finality and § 2255(h) bar. | No; savings clause does not authorize § 2241 review for misapplication of guidelines when the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum. |
| Whether finality interests under AEDPA bar relief for sentencing errors years after final judgment. | Gilbert asserts finality concerns should yield to correction of a faulty sentence. | Finality and efficiency of collateral review justify leaving the original sentence intact. | Finality concerns strongly support denying relief; cannot rewrite § 2255(e) through a broad savings clause. |
| Whether the relationship between § 2255(e) savings clause and § 2255(h) second‑or‑successive bar allows relief. | Savings clause can circumvent § 2255(h) restrictions. | AEDPA's bar remains; savings clause cannot undermine the § 2255(h) limits. | Savings clause cannot override the § 2255(h) bar; relief not provided. |
| Whether the Court should apply Sawyer/actual-innocence exceptions to allow sentencing-error relief. | Gilbert relies on actual-innocence-type exceptions. | Sawyer-like exceptions do not apply to non-constitutional sentencing mistakes. | Sawyer actual-innocence of sentence exceptions do not apply to guideline miscalculations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (retired the view that driving under the influence is a 'violent felony' for ACCA/G4B1.1 purposes)
- Archer v. United States, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (overruled Gilbert I on 'crime of violence' for career-offender purposes)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (savings clause does not reach sentencing claims that could have been raised earlier)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent second-or-successive petition bars in habeas context (state cases; applicable to federal § 2255 similarly))
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1996) (suspension clause and AEDPA second-petition restrictions do not violate the Suspension Clause)