Kevin Spencer v. United States
773 F.3d 1132
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kevin Spencer pleaded guilty (2007) to distributing crack cocaine; district court applied the career‑offender guideline (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) based on prior convictions including a Florida third‑degree felony child‑abuse plea, and sentenced him to 151 months.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed the career‑offender designation under then‑controlling precedent; the Supreme Court decided Begay soon thereafter.
- Spencer moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing Begay made clear his Florida child‑abuse conviction was not a “crime of violence,” so the career‑offender enhancement was misapplied.
- The district court denied relief; this Court granted COA on the cognizability and merits questions and ultimately reheard the matter en banc.
- The en banc majority held Spencer’s claim is not cognizable on § 2255 collateral review because (1) his sentence is below the statutory maximum (i.e., “lawful”), (2) his prior conviction was not vacated, and (3) advisory‑Guidelines misapplications ordinarily do not produce the “complete miscarriage of justice” required to reopen final sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spencer) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't / Majority) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a freestanding challenge to an advisory career‑offender designation is cognizable on a first § 2255 motion | Begay retroactively shows his Florida child‑abuse plea is not a crime of violence; that legal error makes his sentence unjust and reviewable | § 2255 relief requires a fundamental defect producing a complete miscarriage of justice; advisory Guideline misapplications that leave a sentence below the statutory maximum are not cognizable absent vacatur of a predicate or actual innocence | Not cognizable: COA defective but Court reached merits and denied relief |
| Whether Begay requires reclassification of Spencer’s prior conviction as non‑violent | Begay limits the residual clause; Spencer’s Florida conviction does not categorically present a serious potential risk of physical injury | Even if Begay would change the categorical analysis, reclassification alone does not make a lawful, below‑max statutory sentence subject to collateral attack | Court did not reach a merits reversal because cognizability fails |
| Whether a below‑statutory‑maximum sentence enhanced by Guidelines error can be a "complete miscarriage of justice" | The erroneous enhancement doubled Spencer’s Guidelines range, producing substantial additional prison time — that prejudice satisfies the miscarriage‑of‑justice exception | Supreme Court precedent (Addonizio, Hill) treats only certain errors (e.g., conviction no longer criminal or vacated predicate) as satisfying the exception; finality and the advisory nature of the Guidelines counsel against collateral relief | Majority: such Guidelines errors do not meet the exception absent vacatur or actual innocence |
| Whether Johnson/Stewart (vacated predicate conviction cases) compels relief here | Johnson/Stewart demonstrate that when a predicate that enhanced a sentence is void, § 2255 relief is available; Begay operates similarly to render Spencer’s predicate invalid | Distinction: Johnson/Stweart relied on vacatur (a new factual event); Spencer’s prior conviction remains intact — his claim is a legal reinterpretation, not vacatur | Court: distinction dispositive; Johnson does not require relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (narrowing the scope of offenses that qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA and influencing career‑offender residual‑clause analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (vacatur of a predicate conviction entitles defendant to resentencing when that conviction had been used to enhance a federal sentence)
- Addonizio v. United States, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (§ 2255 does not permit collateral attack for post‑sentencing frustrations of a judge’s subjective expectations; lawful sentences do not automatically produce collateral relief)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (collateral relief unavailable for nonconstitutional, nonfundamental errors absent a showing the error caused a complete miscarriage of justice)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines remain a central sentencing anchor; retrospective guideline increases can raise ex post facto concerns)
- Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (career‑offender misclassification under advisory Guidelines is not cognizable on collateral review when sentence is below statutory maximum)
- Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2014) (panel) (held contrary to majority here — career‑offender errors may be collateralizable; later vacated for en banc)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (discussing finality and resentencing possibilities under advisory Guidelines)