Quawntay Adams v. United States
911 F.3d 397
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Quawntay Adams was convicted of drug and related offenses; at sentencing the court used a 1997 California conviction as a predicate under the career-offender Guidelines, producing a 420-month sentence.
- Adams’ counsel did not object to use of the 1997 conviction at sentencing; Adams raised limited issues on direct appeal and the Seventh Circuit vacated only the money-laundering count and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand Adams argued he was misclassified as a career offender because the California conviction did not qualify under the Guidelines and the court relied on the wrong state charging document; the court resentenced him to 420 months and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Adams filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion raising ineffective-assistance claims (including failure to challenge the predicate conviction and reliance on the Complaint rather than the Second Amended Information); the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit denied a COA.
- Adams then filed Rule 60(b)(6) motions to reopen the §2255 proceedings, arguing (inter alia) reliance on the wrong Shepard document, misapplication of law of the case, failure to notify him about COA denial, and lack of counsel in §2255 proceedings; the district court denied relief as an unauthorized successive §2255 and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Adams' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 60(b) motion that attacks the merits of a §2255 ruling is an unauthorized successive §2255 petition | 60(b) motion is procedural relief to reopen the judgment (not a new §2255) | The motion reargues §2255 merits and thus is an unauthorized second/successive §2255 requiring appellate authorization | The Rule 60(b) motion was really an attack on the merits and therefore an unauthorized successive §2255; district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it |
| Whether relying on the California Complaint (instead of the Second Amended Information) was a procedural defect showing relief under Rule 60(b) | The court used the wrong Shepard document; counsel was ineffective for not objecting | The two documents are identically worded; reliance on the Complaint was harmless and was already considered on §2255 review | District court had already considered and rejected this claim; any document error was harmless and not a basis for 60(b) relief |
| Whether the California offense could be non-qualifying (e.g., mere "offer to sell" or "transport") such that counsel was ineffective for not arguing it | Counsel should have argued the prior conviction might be for non-qualifying conduct (offer/transport), so sentence enhancement was wrongful | Charging language and Shepard documents show conviction for selling cocaine, which is unquestionably a controlled-substance offense; counsel not ineffective | The §2255 court reasonably found the conviction was for selling cocaine; related arguments were subsumed and rejected on the merits, so 60(b) cannot relitigate them |
| Whether lack of counsel during §2255 proceedings is a procedural defect that permits 60(b) relief | Absence of counsel in collateral proceedings deprived him of meaningful review and supports Rule 60(b) relief | Any counsel-related arguments were raised and addressed on the merits; even if Trevino/Martinez doctrine applies, Adams did not raise abandonment and district court addressed his claims | District court erred in stating no right to counsel for §2255 proceedings, but error was harmless because the §2255 court addressed Adams’ claims on the merits; no 60(b) relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate merits of a habeas ruling; such filings are treated as successive habeas petitions)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach governs whether prior convictions qualify as predicate offenses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (identifies limited documents courts may consult to determine the crime of conviction for predicate-offense analysis)
- Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 1996) (district courts must dismiss second or successive §2255 petitions absent appellate authorization)
- Ramirez v. United States, 799 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 60(b) may proceed when procedural defects, such as counsel abandonment, prevented merits review)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (limited Martinez/Trevino principles concerning ineffective-assistance claims in collateral review)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (excusing procedural default where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)