In re Conzelmann
872 F.3d 375
6th Cir.2017Background
- Scott A. Conzelmann, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2011 to two counts of distributing cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender to 188 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
- This court affirmed his conviction and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2013.
- Conzelmann filed a § 2255 motion in 2014 raising ineffective assistance of counsel and induced-prosecution claims; the district court denied relief and this court refused a COA.
- A subsequent Rule 60(b) motion was treated as a successive § 2255 and denied leave to file by this court in 2016.
- Conzelmann’s current (third) application seeks permission to file a second or successive § 2255 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), arguing Mathis and Hinkle mean his prior chemical-possession conviction no longer qualifies as a career-offender predicate.
- The Sixth Circuit denied leave, holding Mathis and Hinkle do not satisfy the statutory requirement for a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conzelmann may file a successive § 2255 based on Mathis/Hinkle | Mathis and Hinkle reinterpreted predicate-offense analysis so his prior conviction no longer counts, creating a new, retroactive rule under § 2255(h)(2) | The decisions are not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court; Mathis is statutory interpretation and Hinkle is another-circuit decision | Denied: Mathis/Hinkle do not meet § 2255(h)(2); Mathis is not a new, retroactive constitutional rule, and Hinkle is not binding circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (interpreting elements-vs-means analysis for predicate offenses under ACCA)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (applying Mathis-type analysis to predicate-offense questions)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for determining whether a rule is "new" for collateral review)
- In re Embry, 831 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing Teague in the § 2255 successive-review context)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (U.S. 2001) (holding a new rule is not retroactive on collateral review unless the Supreme Court says so)
- Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016) (reasoning Mathis is statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule)