Jesus Arreola-Castillo v. United States
889 F.3d 378
7th Cir.2018Background
- In 2006 Jesus Arreola-Castillo was sentenced in federal court for conspiracy to distribute 1,000+ kg of marijuana; the government filed § 851 informations alleging two New Mexico felony drug convictions from 1996, triggering a mandatory life term under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
- Arreola-Castillo appealed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2008. He later pursued state-court collateral relief, and New Mexico vacated the two prior convictions in 2014 and 2015 on ineffective-assistance/immigration-advice grounds.
- After the first vacatur, Arreola-Castillo filed a § 2255 motion to reopen his federal sentence, arguing he no longer qualified for the § 841 recidivism enhancement because the state convictions had been vacated.
- The district court denied relief, concluding Arreola-Castillo’s claim was time-barred by § 851(e), which bars challenging the validity of any prior conviction alleged under § 851 that occurred more than five years before the filing of the information.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding § 851(e) does not bar a § 2255 motion seeking resentencing based on state-court vacatur of the prior convictions; the court declined to resolve a forfeited timeliness defense the government raised on appeal and proceeded to the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 851(e)’s five-year bar prevents reopening a federal sentence under § 2255 after state vacatur of prior convictions | Arreola-Castillo: § 851(e) bars only collateral attacks on the validity of convictions, not disputes about their existence once a state court has vacated them; thus § 851(e) does not apply | Government: § 851(e) bars challenges where the prior convictions occurred more than five years before the information was filed, so the § 2255 motion is time-barred | Court: § 851(e) applies to challenges to validity, not to requests for resentencing based on state vacatur; § 2255 relief is available in this circumstance |
| Whether § 851 is the exclusive remedy precluding § 2255 relief | Arreola-Castillo: § 851 does not expressly preclude habeas relief; Supreme Court precedent allows reopening federal sentences after successful state challenges | Government: § 851’s procedures and waiver/statute-of-limitations language show Congress intended exclusivity | Court: § 851 does not clearly and unambiguously repeal habeas relief; Custis/Daniels/Johnson permit reopening after successful state collateral attack |
| Whether the government’s timeliness argument under § 2255(f)(4) should be considered on appeal | Arreola-Castillo: government forfeited/waived the argument by not raising it below; appellate court should not entertain it | Government: raised timeliness for first time on appeal asserting lack of due diligence in pursuing state vacatur | Court: government forfeited; even if forfeited, appellate court declines to exercise discretion to decide that forfeited procedural defense and proceeds to merits |
| Whether public-policy/finality concerns justify reading § 851(e) to bar recognition of state vacatur | Arreola-Castillo: finality concerns are inapposite where the state itself vacated the convictions; resentencing relies on state-court orders, not relitigation | Government: allowing resentencing undermines § 851(e)’s purpose to avoid stale collateral attacks and to protect state-court finality | Court: those concerns do not apply because the state vacatur removes finality and the federal court need only rely on state-court orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (vacatur in state court can trigger § 2255 timeliness rule)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (may attack state convictions in state court and then seek reopening of enhanced federal sentence)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (reaffirming Custis: successful state collateral challenge permits federal resentencing)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (appellate court discretion to consider forfeited habeas timeliness arguments is limited)
- McChristian v. United States, 47 F.3d 1499 (9th Cir.) (§ 851(e) does not preclude reliance on state-court vacation of prior conviction)
- United States v. Arango-Montoya, 61 F.3d 1331 (7th Cir.) (§ 851(e) bars collateral attack on validity but sentencing court must still ask defendant to affirm/deny prior convictions)