Levence Simpson v. United States, 721 F.3d 875

Simpson was convicted of drug offenses and sentenced to a 240-month mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A); this sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed an unsuccessful §2255 ineffective-assistance claim and later a second collateral attack dismissed for lack of authorization; he now seeks permission to file a successive collateral attack based on Alleyne.
At sentencing (pre-Alleyne), judge or jury could determine facts triggering mandatory minimums per Harris; Simpson did not admit the relevant facts at trial.
Alleyne (2013) holds that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum must be found by a jury (or admitted), creating a new constitutional rule Simpson argues fits §2255(h)(2).
The Seventh Circuit denied Simpson leave to file the successive §2255: (1) Alleyne has not been declared retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, as required by §2255(h)(2); and (2) Simpson’s jury returned a special verdict finding quantities sufficient to impose the 240-month minimum regardless of the judge’s later findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alleyne creates a new rule allowing a successive §2255 under §2255(h)(2)	Alleyne is a new Sixth Amendment jury-rights rule that fits §2255(h)(2) and permits a successive collateral attack	§2255(h)(2) requires the Supreme Court to have made the rule retroactive on collateral review; Alleyne did not do so	Denied: Alleyne not made retroactive by the Supreme Court, so §2255(h)(2) unavailable
Whether Alleyne would benefit Simpson on the merits	Alleyne requires jury findings for facts triggering mandatory minimums, so Simpson’s sentence is invalid	Simpson’s jury already returned a special verdict finding drug quantities sufficient to trigger the 240-month minimum	Denied: jury verdict alone established quantities requiring the statutory minimum, so Alleyne would not change Simpson’s result
Whether Simpson may file a supplemental memorandum after filing for leave	Needs time to develop Alleyne-based arguments	Circuit cannot extend statutory deadlines for successive petitions; delay pointless given independent dispositive reasons	Denied: request for additional time denied; application dismissed

Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (pre-Alleyne rule allowing judge to find facts increasing mandatory minimums)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury or admitted)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (constitutional rule limiting judge-found facts that increase penalties)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (Apprendi-based rule not retroactive on collateral review)
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (§2255(h)(2) retroactivity requires Supreme Court to make rule retroactive)
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (discussing requirement that Supreme Court make new rules retroactive for collateral review)
Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 1997) (bar on successive collateral claims raising same ineffective-assistance issues)
Curtis v. United States, 294 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi not retroactive)
Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000) (courts lack authority to extend certain statutory filing deadlines)