Robert Griffin Brown v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5964
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Griffin Brown pled guilty to three drug counts and one firearm count; the district court sentenced him to concurrent 188-month terms on Counts 1–3 (including an ACCA-enhanced 188 months on the felon‑in‑possession Count 3) and a consecutive 60 months on Count 4, for 248 months total.
- Brown’s Presentence Report treated a 1988 Florida carrying‑a‑concealed‑weapon conviction as an ACCA predicate; the court applied U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 and imposed the 188‑month guideline sentence. Brown did not appeal.
- After Begay v. United States, Brown argued that the Florida concealed‑carry offense is not an ACCA violent‑felony predicate, so his ACCA enhancement on Count 3 was invalid and the statutory maximum for § 922(g) is 120 months.
- Brown filed a § 2241 petition invoking the § 2255(e) savings clause and relying on the Bryant five‑part test; the government conceded the first three Bryant prongs but argued Brown fails the fourth because his overall detention remains authorized by the drug convictions.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding Brown could not use the savings clause to challenge one concurrent sentence when total detention remains within statutory authorization; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown may access § 2255(e) savings clause to challenge an ACCA enhancement on one of multiple concurrent sentences | Begay makes his ACCA predicate invalid; § 2255 was inadequate so § 2241 is available to correct the illegal firearm sentence | Savings clause concerns legality of overall detention; because drug sentences authorize the same or longer detention, Brown is not ‘‘in custody in violation’’ and cannot access § 2255(e) | Court held petitioner must show total detention exceeds statutory maxima for his convictions; Brown failed fourth Bryant prong and lacks jurisdiction under § 2255(e) |
| Whether a petitioner serving concurrent sentences need show overall sentence exceeds statutory maximum for each count to trigger Bryant prong four | Brown: showing illegality of the specific ACCA sentence suffices; sentencing package doctrine could permit resentencing on related counts | Government: petitioner must show aggregate detention is unauthorized by any statute; concurrent lawful sentences block § 2241 relief | Court held petitioner must demonstrate his total time in custody exceeds the statutory maximum applicable to each conviction; single illegal concurrent sentence is insufficient |
| Whether § 2255(e) permits relief for guidelines‑calculation errors (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4) via § 2241 | Brown preserved claim that guidelines enhancement was erroneous and sought recalculation | Government: savings clause does not permit collateral attacks on guidelines miscalculations | Court reaffirmed precedent that § 2255(e) does not permit § 2241 challenges to guidelines errors (Gilbert) |
| Whether sentencing package doctrine would allow resentencing on drug counts if ACCA sentence reduced | Brown: even if § 2241 limited, sentencing package doctrine would permit recalculation and discretionary resentencing on Count 1–2 | Government: savings clause and Bryant control; district court lacked jurisdiction and package doctrine cannot be used to access § 2241 relief here | Court did not reach merits of sentencing package argument because Brown lacked jurisdiction to obtain ACCA reduction; no resentencing ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (announcing five‑part test for accessing § 2255(e) via sentencing error)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (defining ACCA "violent felony" requirement and narrowing predicate offenses)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding § 2255(e) does not allow § 2241 challenges to guidelines miscalculations)
- Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing savings‑clause jurisdictional questions de novo)
- United States v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398 (11th Cir. 1996) (previously treating Florida concealed‑carry as ACCA predicate; later abrogated by Begay)
- United States v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing Begay's effect to exclude Florida concealed‑carry as ACCA predicate)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (describing narrow scope of savings‑clause exception for fundamental defects)