Roderick Pearson v. Warden Canaan USP
685 F. App'x 93
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Pearson pled guilty to bank robbery and a § 922(g)(1) count and was convicted at trial on an additional bank robbery and a § 924(c) count; total sentence 564 months, including a 180-month mandatory term under the ACCA for the § 922(g) conviction.
- The district court treated Pearson as a career offender under the Guidelines based on two prior "crimes of violence," producing a higher advisory range; the court departed downward.
- Pearson filed a § 2255 motion in 2009 challenging his § 922(g) enhancement under the ACCA; the district court denied relief in 2011 and his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.
- In 2014 Pearson filed a § 2241 petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing his ACCA enhancement was improper because his prior conspiracy-to-robbery convictions are not violent felonies under Begay v. United States.
- He claimed § 2241 was available because Begay (and related Eleventh Circuit decisions) changed the law and, per Bryant, Begay was retroactive on collateral review.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding § 2255 was the proper vehicle and its § 2255(e) "savings clause" did not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pearson may challenge his ACCA enhancement via § 2241 under § 2255(e) savings clause | Begay and subsequent Eleventh Circuit rulings made conspiracy-to-robbery not a violent felony; § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective" so he can use § 2241 | § 2255 is the proper remedy; nothing prevented Pearson from raising the Begay-based claim in his § 2255 proceeding | Court held § 2241 not available; § 2255 was adequate and Plaintiff may not proceed under § 2241 |
| Whether Begay-created rule (requiring purposeful, violent, aggressive conduct) rendered Pearson’s prior conspiracies non-violent and thus invalidated ACCA enhancement | Begay and Whitson show conspiracy-to-robbery is not a violent felony; Eleventh Circuit held Begay applies retroactively | Even if Begay would affect the substantive characterization, Pearson could have raised the claim in his 2009 § 2255 proceeding | Court did not reach merits; rejected § 2241 jurisdictional vehicle because claim could have been raised earlier |
| Whether intervening changes (Johnson/Calabretta) allow § 2241 relief here | Johnson and related cases demonstrate vagueness problems with residual clauses that could affect his sentence | Johnson/Calabretta are unrelated to whether § 2241 is available; intervening change does not convert § 2255 into § 2241 relief | Court held Johnson/Calabretta irrelevant to the jurisdictional question and § 2241 remains unavailable |
| Whether Beckles undermines any Guidelines-based vagueness argument Pearson might assert | — (no asserted separate argument) | Beckles holds the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause is not void for vagueness, undermining such challenges | Court noted Beckles forecloses a substantive Guidelines vagueness challenge and Pearson’s substantive arguments lack merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (defines ACCA violent felony requiring purposeful, violent, aggressive conduct)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process)
- Calabretta v. United States, 831 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2016) (applied Johnson to invalidate Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2255(e) savings clause is narrowly construed; § 2255 inadequate only in limited circumstances)
- Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002) (§ 2241 not available for intervening change in sentencing law)
- Whitson v. United States, 597 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2010) (addressed application of Begay-type analysis to categorical crime definitions)
- Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (held Begay retroactive on collateral review)