Marcus Hahn v. Bonita Moseley
931 F.3d 295
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 1999 law enforcement seized 21 firearms and marijuana plants from Marcus Hahn's home; a jury convicted him of drug offenses and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing firearms in furtherance of separate drug-related offenses.
- Hahn was sentenced in 2001 to a total of 480 months, including a consecutive 300-month term for the second § 924(c) conviction characterized as a "second or subsequent" offense.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed on direct appeal relying on United States v. Sturmoski, which permitted multiple § 924(c) convictions arising from the same criminal episode so long as double jeopardy was not violated.
- Hahn pursued collateral relief under § 2255 and later sought relief based on intervening Tenth Circuit en banc precedent in United States v. Rentz, which adopted a unit-of-prosecution rule requiring a separate use/carry/possession for each § 924(c) conviction.
- Hahn filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the district court where he was detained (South Carolina), arguing Rentz retroactively rendered his second § 924(c) conviction improper; the district court denied relief under the In re Jones savings-clause framework.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding Rentz constituted a substantive change in Tenth Circuit law that made the second § 924(c) conviction invalid and that Hahn satisfied the three In re Jones prongs to invoke the § 2255 savings clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hahn can use § 2241 via the § 2255 savings clause to attack his second § 924(c) conviction | Rentz changed Tenth Circuit substantive law (unit-of-prosecution) after Hahn's direct appeal, so his second § 924(c) conviction is no longer valid; § 2255 is inadequate | Government: Hahn must show "actual innocence" of the underlying conduct and Rentz does not apply retroactively to invalidate his conviction; factual differences distinguish Rentz | Hahn may proceed under § 2241 via the § 2255 savings clause; Rentz substantively changed the law and his second § 924(c) conviction is invalid |
| Whether settled law at time of conviction authorized multiple § 924(c) counts here | At trial, Tenth Circuit precedent (Sturmoski) allowed multiple § 924(c) convictions so long as double jeopardy wasn’t violated | Government relies on that settled precedent to defend the conviction | Court: At time of conviction, Sturmoski governed; first In re Jones prong satisfied |
| Whether Rentz announced a substantive change making Hahn’s conduct non-criminal for the second § 924(c) count | Rentz requires independent use/carry/possession for each § 924(c) count; Hahn was charged twice for the same single possession of a single gun collection | Government: Rentz is distinguishable on facts or does not create retroactive relief; urges actual-innocence gateway | Court: Rentz changed unit‑of‑prosecution analysis; Hahn’s duplicate count is impermissible under Rentz; second In re Jones prong satisfied |
| Whether Hahn cannot obtain relief under § 2255 gatekeeping because Rentz is non-constitutional | Hahn: Rentz is statutory (non-constitutional), so he cannot meet § 2255 successive‑motion gatekeeping and must use savings clause | Government: urges stricter actual‑innocence requirement to invoke savings clause | Court: Rentz is non-constitutional; Hahn cannot satisfy § 2255 gatekeeping, so third In re Jones prong satisfied and relief proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (adopts unit‑of‑prosecution rule: each § 924(c) count requires a separate use, carry, or possession)
- United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452 (10th Cir. 1992) (allowed multiple § 924(c) convictions from the same episode so long as double jeopardy is not violated)
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (three‑prong test for when § 2255 is inadequate and § 2241 may be used via the savings clause)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway for procedurally defaulted constitutional claims)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence framework in plea/default contexts and limits on theories courts may consider)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (double jeopardy test comparing statutory elements)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (discusses savings‑clause use when law changes after initial collateral review)
- United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018) (applies Jones to sentencing errors and rejects requirement of actual innocence for savings‑clause relief)