Jason White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547

Background

Jason White was convicted in 2013 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as an armed career criminal (ACCA) to 30 years based on three predicate convictions.
The district court at sentencing cited: attempted armed robbery (2004), delivery of crack near a church (2008), and aggravated fleeing (2007). The government had also listed a 2003 crack delivery conviction in its § 924(e) notice and in its version of the offense.
After Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, the parties agreed the aggravated fleeing conviction no longer qualified; the government argued the 2003 drug delivery conviction could be substituted as a predicate.
White did not challenge his ACCA designation on direct appeal; he later filed a § 2255 petition arguing he lacked three qualifying predicates (and, later, that Illinois cocaine convictions are overbroad under Ruth).
The district court denied § 2255 relief, finding (1) substitution did not prejudice White because he had notice of the 2003 predicate, (2) White procedurally defaulted many claims by failing to raise them on direct appeal, and (3) attempted armed robbery remains a valid predicate.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding White waived some arguments, procedurally defaulted others, and in any event had adequate notice and alternative qualifying predicates to sustain the ACCA enhancement.

Issues

Issue	White's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1) May a court substitute one prior conviction for another to sustain an ACCA enhancement without violating fair notice?	Substitution surprised him because the sentencing court did not explicitly rely on the 2003 conviction at sentencing.	White had formal § 924(e) notice, a presentence report listing the 2003 conviction, and opportunities to object; substitution is permissible where notice and case-specific factors support it (Dotson).	Waived in opening brief; alternatively, substitution comported with fair notice on the record, so no due-process violation.
2) Do White’s 2003 and 2008 Illinois cocaine delivery convictions qualify as ACCA "serious drug offenses" after Ruth/Shular?	Ruth shows Illinois’s cocaine definition is broader than federal law, so those convictions are categorically overbroad and not ACCA predicates.	White failed to raise this at sentencing or on direct appeal; the claim is procedurally defaulted. Even if considered, the categorical approach was available earlier and the claim was not novel enough to excuse default.	Procedurally defaulted (no cause shown); White could have raised the argument earlier, so Ruth does not entitle him to § 2255 relief.
3) Did White procedurally waive or default his challenges by not raising them on direct appeal or in his opening brief?	He contends intervening law (Ruth/Shular) created a new basis for collateral relief.	White had notice and the legal basis to raise the issues earlier; his failure to present developed arguments waived them; intervening decisions were not so novel as to constitute cause.	Waiver of arguments omitted from opening brief; procedural default of claims not raised on direct appeal—no cause or prejudice shown.
4) Is the attempted armed robbery conviction a valid ACCA predicate post-Johnson?	White argued attempted armed robbery is not a valid predicate after Johnson.	Attempt offenses count as violent felonies when the substantive offense is a violent felony; therefore attempted armed robbery qualifies.	Held valid: attempted armed robbery counts as an ACCA violent-felony predicate.

Key Cases Cited

Dotson v. United States, 949 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2020) (allows substitution of a listed prior conviction as an ACCA predicate when record-based notice and case-specific factors exist)
Ruth v. United States, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (held certain Illinois cocaine statutes broader than federal definition for ACCA purposes)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (cause-and-prejudice standard to excuse procedural default on collateral review)
Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (directs courts to assess whether state offense "involves" conduct covered by ACCA definitions rather than to craft a generic offense)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (foundational categorical approach for comparing state and federal offenses)
United States v. Nebinger, 987 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2021) (forfeiture of Ruth-style challenges where defendant failed to preserve them)
Hill v. United States, 877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2017) (attempt offenses qualify as violent felonies when the substantive offense is a violent felony)