McKinney v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium
870 F. Supp. 2d 1351
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- Gilbert en banc held that 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241/2255 cannot be used for intervening-law claims unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum or actual innocence is shown; this reasoning was not extended to ACCA career-offender scenarios.
- The two cases here (McKinney and Williams) challenge sentences as above-maximum under ACCA or similar enhancements, raising the issue Gilbert did not decide.
- Court reviews Gilbert, then applies its logic to McKinney and Williams, and concludes Gilbert controls and the petitions are to be denied.
- McKinney (1992–1996 sentencing) received ACCA-enhanced 262-month sentence; later challengers argued Begay/Archer changed law; petition under §2241 filed 2009.
- Williams (2003–2004 offenses) received ACCA enhancement based on three predicates; later discovery of a third predicate raised ACCA issue; government conceded relief.
- Court ultimately holds that Gilbert governs and denies McKinney and Williams §2241 petitions with prejudice, preserving finality of judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gilbert controls relief under §2241 for ACCA or guideline enhancements later deemed unlawful | McKinney/ Williams rely on Gilbert not being decided for ACCA-like cases | Gilbert does not distinguish ACCA from guideline enhancements; finality applies | Gilbert controls; petitions denied |
| Whether savings clause §2255(e) permits relief for these petitioners | Savings clause should reopen relief due to intervening law | Savings clause does not permit relief where actual innocence is not shown | Denied; savings clause not available here |
| Whether Davenport compels a different result than Gilbert | Davenport favors relief for ACCA predicate issues | Gilbert controls; Davenport distinguishable | Gilbert governs; Davenport not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. en banc (2011)) (controlling framework on finality and §2255/e savings clause)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (habeas relief available for penalties vs. convictions; actual innocence rule)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (innocence of the offense in savings clause context)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (crime-of-violence determination changed post-conviction)
- Archer v. United States, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (post-conviction alignment with Begay on predicate offenses)
- United States v. Gibson, 64 F.3d 617 (11th Cir. 1995) (ACCA/mandatory minimum context distinction)
- United States v. Cobia, 41 F.3d 1473 (11th Cir. 1995) (guidelines-based enhancement context)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (factors in sentencing enhancements and Apprendi lineage)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (regarding sentencing factors and regime limitations)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (standards for sentencing findings)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory/advisory shift in guidelines context)
- Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2002) (cited in Gilbert as related authority)