Shedrick D. Hollis v. United States, 958 F.3d 1120

Background

Shedrick Hollis is a federal inmate sentenced to 420 months for drug and gun offenses and filed a §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
The claimed deficiency: counsel failed to argue that Hollis’s two Alabama convictions for distributing cocaine (Ala. Code §13A-12-211) and his Georgia conviction for trafficking in cocaine (O.C.G.A. §16-13-31) could not be used as predicate controlled-substance/serious-drug offenses for the Sentencing Guidelines career-offender provision and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on whether counsel was ineffective for not making those predicate-offense challenges.
The court applied the categorical approach (considering only statutory elements and the fact of conviction) and analyzed Alabama’s distribution statute and Georgia’s trafficking-by-quantity statute against federal definitions of “serious drug offense” and “controlled substance offense.”
The court concluded Alabama’s distribution statute (which criminalizes selling, furnishing, delivering and is punishable up to 20 years) categorically qualifies under both ACCA and the Guidelines; Georgia’s trafficking statute (possession of 28 grams or more) also qualifies under ACCA because quantity can infer intent to distribute.
Because the predicate-status arguments were meritless, counsel’s failure to raise them was not deficient; the district court’s denial of Hollis’s §2255 motion was affirmed. The court granted Hollis leave to file an out-of-time reply brief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Hollis’s two Alabama distribution convictions are not predicate controlled-substance offenses for the Guidelines or serious drug offenses under ACCA	Hollis: counsel should have argued the Alabama statutes do not categorically match federal definitions and thus cannot be predicates	Government: Alabama statute criminalizes sale/furnish/delivery and is punishable up to 20 years, so it categorically qualifies under both ACCA and the Guidelines; objection would be meritless	Court: Alabama convictions categorically qualify; counsel not ineffective
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Hollis’s Georgia trafficking (28 g+) conviction is not a predicate serious drug offense under ACCA	Hollis: counsel should have challenged Georgia trafficking as not matching ACCA’s definition	Government: Georgia’s trafficking-by-quantity statute infers intent to distribute at the specified quantity and carries long mandatory sentences, so it qualifies as a serious drug offense under ACCA	Court: Georgia trafficking conviction qualifies under ACCA; counsel not ineffective

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (categorical approach uses the statutory conduct defining a serious drug offense)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical-approach framework for predicate-offense analysis)
United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (Alabama drug statutes can qualify as serious drug offenses under ACCA)
United States v. Madera-Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (Georgia trafficking-by-quantity can infer intent to distribute and qualify as a trafficking offense)
United States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for proving deficient performance)
Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for §2255 appeals)
United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012) (distribution need not involve exchange for value for ACCA serious-drug definition)
United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (application of categorical approach to predicate-offense questions)