Muth v. Fondren
676 F.3d 815
9th Cir.2012Background
- Petitioner pleaded guilty in 2003 to 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A) for using a firearm in relation to a drug offense; district court sentenced five years for meth possession with intent to distribute and an additional ten years for the related firearm offense; initial confinement in Minnesota.
- Watson v. United States (2007) held that receiving a firearm in a drugs-for-firearms trade does not constitute “use” of the firearm under §924(c)(1)(A).
- Petitioner later argued actual innocence under the Watson rule via a §2241 petition, which the Minnesota district court treated as a disguised §2255 motion and transferred to Montana court.
- Montana district court analyzed the petition as a §2255 motion and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief; the court then denied a COA.
- Petitioner claimed actual innocence based on whether he supplied or received the firearm in the trade; the record showed conflicting accounts in the indictment, plea agreement, and plea colloquy.
- Court concluded petitioner supplied the firearm and received methamphetamine, placing his conduct under Smith rather than Watson, and held he is not actually innocent; COA denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properly classify petition as §2241 or §2255 escape hatch | Muth Treats as §2241 under escape hatch | Petition properly treated as §2255 claim and transferred | Petition construed as §2255; jurisdiction to merits retained by transferee court |
| Whether petition shows actual innocence under Bousley | Watson renders him actually innocent | Record shows he supplied firearm; not innocent | Not actually innocent; conduct falls under Smith; §2241 escape hatch not available |
| Effect of sworn plea admissions on collateral challenge | Sworn statements in plea contradict plea agreement | Petitioner bound by his sworn admission; not credible to override | Sworn plea admissions control; cannot establish actual innocence by contradicting statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2007) (abrogated Ramirez-Rangel’s use-for-firearm rule; distinction with trading in Smith)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1993) (supplier in drugs-for-firearms trade uses firearm under §924(c))
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (actual innocence requires factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency)
- Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (describes escape hatch availability and standards)
- Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (COA considerations for §2241 petitions)
- Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (threshold 2241 vs 2255 jurisdiction, transfer analysis)