James Hicks v. Moses Stancil, 642 F. App'x 620

James Hicks was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for being a felon in possession of a firearm and originally sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to 180 months.
The ACCA enhancement was based on four prior drug convictions, including three Wisconsin Class F felony heroin-distribution convictions from 2003.
Hicks first collaterally challenged his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing ineffective assistance for failing to combine the 2003 convictions; that motion was denied.
He then filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing that United States v. Spencer changed the law: Wisconsin Class F felonies committed in 2000 or later (punishable by up to 7½ years) do not qualify as ACCA predicates because the statutory maximum is under 10 years.
The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition as unavailable because Hicks could have raised the Spencer argument earlier; the government defended that ruling on appeal but then expressly waived that defense.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit accepted the government’s waiver, concluded Spencer controls, held Hicks lacks three predicates, vacated the district court judgment, and remanded with instructions to grant resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of § 2241 to attack ACCA sentence	Hicks: § 2241 is proper because Spencer changed predicate-law and §2255 is inadequate or ineffective	Gov: §2241 unavailable because Hicks could have raised Spencer on appeal or in §2255; §2255(e) bars relief	Court accepted gov’t waiver of this defense and proceeded to decide merits; waiver allowed §2241 review
Whether Wisconsin Class F felonies (2000+) count as ACCA predicates	Hicks: Spencer says such Class F felonies (max 7½ yrs) are not predicates	Gov (ultimately conceded): does not dispute Spencer’s reading	Court: Spencer controls—these convictions are not ACCA predicates
Whether Hicks has three predicate convictions for ACCA	Hicks: three 2003 Class F convictions should not count separately under Spencer	Gov: previously contested but waived on appeal	Court: Only one qualifying predicate remains; Hicks is not an armed career criminal
Remedy — resentencing required?	Hicks: requests resentencing without ACCA enhancement	Gov: conceded relief	Court: Vacated district judgment and remanded with instruction to grant petition and authorize resentencing

United States v. Spencer, 739 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2014) (Wisconsin Class F felonies committed in/after 2000 not ACCA predicates)
Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (§2241 can remedy fundamental sentencing errors)
Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (discussing §2255 savings-clause standards)
Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012) (accepting government concession that §2241 available for ACCA challenge)
Harris v. Warden, 425 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2005) (§2255(e) is not jurisdictional; §2241 jurisdiction exists)
Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2004) (jurisdiction for §2241 petitions derives from 28 U.S.C. §1331)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (waiver and forfeiture principles governing appellate defenses)