Matthew Davies v. Michael Benov
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8640
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew Davies pleaded guilty to federal marijuana offenses and agreed to a plea agreement with a collateral-attack waiver, including a specific waiver of § 2241 and § 2255 petitions; he was sentenced to five years.
- After Davies was incarcerated, Congress enacted an appropriations rider prohibiting DOJ funds from being used to prevent states from implementing medical-marijuana laws (including California).
- Davies filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing BOP’s use of federal funds to incarcerate persons who complied with state medical-marijuana laws violates the rider and sought release as the remedy.
- The magistrate judge denied the petition on the ground the plea agreement’s collateral-attack waiver barred the challenge; Davies appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the waiver unambiguously covered his § 2241 challenge and whether the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made (the parties did not dispute voluntariness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea agreement’s collateral-attack waiver bars Davies’s § 2241 challenge to his incarceration under the appropriations rider | Davies: waiver doesn’t reach this § 2241 execution challenge; petition attacks execution of sentence (not legality) and seeks release as remedy | Government: waiver language broadly and expressly waives post-appeal attacks including § 2241 petitions; waiver covers attacks on conviction or sentence and execution | Held: Waiver is broad and unambiguous; it bars Davies’s § 2241 petition |
| Whether challenges to the execution/conditions of a sentence are outside a collateral-attack waiver that covers "attack on his conviction or sentence" | Davies: execution challenges are distinct and should be permitted despite waiver | Government: challenges to execution are a method of attacking the sentence and fall within the waiver | Held: Court treats execution challenges as within the waiver’s scope |
| Whether the court must decide the merits of the appropriations-rider claim | Davies: merits should be considered if waiver doesn’t apply | Government: merits need not be reached if waiver applies | Held: Court abstains from merits because valid waiver disposes of the case |
| Whether an arguably meritorious claim can be barred by a valid waiver | Davies: merits should weigh against enforcing waiver | Government: valid waivers relinquish claims regardless of merit | Held: Valid waivers are enforced even if the waived claims appear meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpreting appropriations rider to limit DOJ prosecutions of conduct compliant with state medical-marijuana laws)
- United States v. Nixon, 839 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (discussing scope of appropriations rider)
- United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for enforcing appeal and collateral-attack waivers)
- United States v. Charles, 581 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2009) (government-drafted plea ambiguities construed for defendant)
- United States v. Speelman, 431 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2005) (principles of contract law govern plea agreement interpretation)
- United States v. Medina-Carrasco, 815 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2015) (valid waivers enforced even when waived claims appear meritorious)