Rife v. United States, 3:16-cv-00285

Background

Jason Rife pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin pursuant to a plea agreement that included a broad, written waiver of the right to appeal or to bring collateral attacks under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (except for ineffective assistance claims tied to the waiver negotiation).
At the change-of-plea hearing Rife confirmed he read, discussed, and understood the plea agreement and the appeal waiver; the magistrate and district court found the plea knowing and voluntary.
Rife was designated a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 based on four Indiana felony convictions and was sentenced to 151 months (the low end of the guideline range); he did not appeal.
After sentencing the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, which struck down the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness and was given retroactive effect on collateral review in Welch.
Rife filed a § 2255 petition within one year of Johnson, arguing Johnson invalidates the similar Guidelines residual clause and thus his career-offender enhancement and sentence.
The district court denied relief on the ground that Rife’s valid, knowing, voluntary waiver bars his collateral challenge; none of the limited exceptions to waiver apply.

Issues

Issue	Rife's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Rife may collaterally attack his sentence under § 2255 despite an appeal/collateral-attack waiver in his plea agreement	Johnson retroactively invalidates the Guidelines residual clause; without it Rife’s priors do not qualify as "crimes of violence," so career-offender enhancement is invalid	Rife expressly waived collateral challenges in a knowing, voluntary plea agreement; statutory exceptions to waiver do not apply	Waiver is enforceable; § 2255 claim barred and petition denied
Whether a change in law (Johnson) defeats an otherwise valid waiver	Johnson creates a constitutional defect that should allow collateral review despite waiver	A waiver remains binding even if subsequent legal developments would help the defendant	Subsequent favorable legal developments do not invalidate a valid waiver
Whether any exception (race/impermissible factor, exceeding statutory maximum, ineffective assistance tied to negotiation) applies to invalidate the waiver	Waiver should not bar review because Johnson renders the Guidelines clause unconstitutional (invoking miscarriage-of-justice arguments)	None of the three recognized Seventh Circuit exceptions apply; Rife does not claim counsel was ineffective re: the waiver; sentence was within statutory maximum; no race/impermissible criteria	None of the exceptions apply; waiver enforced
Whether a "miscarriage of justice" or similar exception permits relief despite waiver (citing Madrid)	The loss of rights from an unconstitutional Guidelines residual clause constitutes a miscarriage of justice that should allow relief	Seventh Circuit does not recognize a generalized miscarriage-of-justice exception to escape a broad waiver; Madrid does not control here and did not involve a waiver	Court refuses to apply a generalized miscarriage-of-justice exception and enforces the waiver

Key Cases Cited

Keller v. United States, 657 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (valid plea-waiver of direct appeal and collateral review can be enforced)
United States v. Sines, 303 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims tied to plea negotiations survive a waiver)
Bridgeman v. United States, 229 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2000) (truthful sworn statements at plea hearing are presumed true)
Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2008) (knowing and voluntary waiver ordinarily must be enforced)
United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2005) (waiver remains effective despite later changes in law)
United States v. Smith, 759 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (appeal waivers preclude review even of retrospective errors)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised in § 2255 proceedings)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a substantive rule with retroactive effect on collateral review)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is void for vagueness)
United States v. Feichtinger, 105 F.3d 1188 (7th Cir. 1997) (waiver not enforced if sentence exceeds statutory maximum)