Scott Owen v. United States
930 F.3d 989
8th Cir.2019Background
- In 2004 Owen pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based on six Missouri second-degree burglary convictions.
- The court sentenced Owen to 188 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- After Johnson v. United States, Owen moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his prior burglaries no longer qualified as ACCA violent felonies; the district court denied relief, finding three convictions still qualified under the enumerated-offenses clause.
- Owen appealed the denial; while the appeal was pending he was released from prison (January 29, 2018).
- Owen’s § 2255 filings sought only reduction of the imprisonment term (immediate release if resentenced within the corrected statutory maximum) and did not seek relief from the supervised-release term.
- The government moved to dismiss the appeal as moot; the panel concluded Owen obtained all requested relief and therefore the appeal was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Owen's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal remains live after appellant’s release from custody | Owen argued Johnson invalidates ACCA enhancement and resentencing could reduce supervised-release term, so controversy persists | Government argued release moots the appeal because Owen sought only reduction in imprisonment, which has been satisfied | Appeal is moot because Owen challenged only imprisonment, which expired; supervised-release was not challenged |
| Whether Owen sought relief as to supervised release | Owen contended his generic request to vacate and resentence encompassed supervised release | Government pointed to §2255 filings explicitly seeking only a reduced term of months of imprisonment | Court found filings and prayers for relief sought only time in custody, not supervised release |
| Whether a resentencing court’s discretion to reduce supervised release can preserve a live controversy | Owen relied on cases where resentencing could affect supervised release | Government distinguished those cases because Owen did not seek supervised-release relief | Court held those authorities irrelevant where movant did not seek supervised-release relief; mere unchallenged supervised release does not sustain a controversy |
| Whether prior authorities (revocation or collateral consequences) keep appeal alive | Owen cited decisions where continuing consequences or revocations preserved appeals | Government and court noted those decisions involved distinct challenges (revocation or explicit supervised-release claims) | Court distinguished those precedents and dismissed appeal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009) (mootness principles and effect of changed circumstances on federal actions)
- Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982) (relief must be effectual; obtaining requested relief moots claim)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (per curiam) (collateral consequences and mootness)
- Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discussing mootness where relief sought has been obtained)
- United States v. Rhone, 647 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2011) (distinguishable: appeal not moot where revocation produced continuing consequences)