Michael Ingram v. United States, 932 F.3d 1084

Background

Ingram was convicted in 2008 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine; the government filed a § 851 notice based on a 2001 Illinois felony drug conviction, which doubled his mandatory minimum from 10 to 20 years.
At initial sentencing the district court denied the § 851 enhancement based on inconsistent proof; the government appealed, and on remand after an evidentiary hearing the enhancement was found proven and a 240-month sentence imposed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in 2010 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In August 2014 Ingram filed a § 2255 motion asserting, inter alia, that the § 851 enhancement was applied arbitrarily across districts in violation of equal protection/selective prosecution; he relied on statistical disparities shown in the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2011 Report and an N.D. Iowa decision, United States v. Young, which reanalyzed the Commission’s raw data.
The district court held Ingram’s claims timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), finding the Commission’s raw data and Young supplied “new facts” and that Ingram acted diligently given delay in prison access to Young; the court also allowed the claim to overcome procedural default and rejected the merits.
On appeal the government argued the § 2255 motion was time-barred; the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether § 2255(f)(4) applied (new fact + diligence) and whether Ingram exercised due diligence once the Commission’s 2011 Report was published.
The Eighth Circuit held that the Commission’s 2011 Report (not Young) constituted the triggering “new facts,” and that Ingram failed to act with due diligence because he waited nearly three years after the 2011 Report to file his § 2255 motion; consequently the motion was time-barred and the district court’s denial was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2255(f)(4) (newly discovered facts) tolled the 1‑year limitations period	Ingram: Commission’s 2011 Report and Young revealed new factual disparities in § 851 application; he filed within one year of Young, so timely	Government: Young is legal analysis; even if facts, the 2011 Report triggered diligence earlier and Ingram filed too late	Held: The 2011 Report supplied the "new facts" trigger and Ingram lacked due diligence; § 2255 untimely
Whether judicial decisions (Young) can be "new facts" under § 2255(f)(4)	Ingram: Relied on facts Young compiled from the Commission’s raw data	Government: Young is newly-discovered law/analysis, not facts	Held: Court treated Young’s underlying Commission data as facts but emphasized the Report (not Young) triggered the duty to act
Whether Ingram exercised due diligence to discover the Commission’s data	Ingram: As an incarcerated person, reasonable delay to access Young; he filed shortly after Young appeared in prison resources	Government: Ingram could have acted sooner once Report was published; challenges to § 851 disparity were not novel	Held: Ingram did not show reasonable diligence; waiting ~3 years after the 2011 Report was untimely
Whether court should reach procedural-default or merits of equal protection/selective prosecution claim	Ingram: Overcame default with cause (new facts) and prejudice; merits show geographic disparity	Government: Procedural default and merits defenses	Held: Court did not reach default or merits because § 2255 was time-barred

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (newly discovered fact example for triggering § 2255(f)(4))
Deroo v. United States, 709 F.3d 1242 (standard: new fact + diligence required for § 2255(f)(4))
Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 814 (due diligence requirement and § 2255(f)(4) framework)
E.J.R.E. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1094 (judicial decisions are not "new facts")
United States v. Ingram, 594 F.3d 972 (prior Eighth Circuit decision affirming conviction and sentence)
United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (disparity challenges to § 851 and mandatory minima)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment proportionality context)