Steiner v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
2:14-cv-01256
M.D. Ala.Nov 14, 2017Background
- In 2009 a jury convicted James Steiner of conspiracy to commit carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 371), aiding and abetting carjacking (18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 & 2), and aiding and abetting the use/carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); sentence was 195 months.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed Steiner’s conviction on direct appeal in 2011; Steiner did not seek Supreme Court review.
- Steiner filed a § 2255 motion (Dec. 2014) relying on Rosemond v. United States (Supreme Court, Mar. 2014), arguing he lacked the advance knowledge required for a § 924(c) conviction and that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to jury instructions.
- He later amended his § 2255 motion (Jan. 2016) to assert that Johnson v. United States (2015) rendered the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denial: Rosemond claims were time-barred and meritless (court found Steiner had advance knowledge); ineffective-assistance claim was time-barred and baseless; Johnson claim failed because conviction also satisfied § 924(c)’s force clause.
- District Court adopted the Recommendation, overruled Steiner’s objections, denied the § 2255 motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice (Nov. 14, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity/timeliness of Rosemond | Rosemond announced a new substantive rule; § 2255(f)(3) tolls limitations so claim timely | Govt: Rosemond is not retroactive; § 2255(f)(1) one-year limit applies; alternatively preserved timeliness defense | Court: Rosemond not treated as newly-recognized retroactive rule here; Rosemond claim time-barred |
| Merits of Rosemond claim (advance knowledge) | Steiner lacked advance knowledge that a co-defendant would use/carry a gun | Govt: evidence shows Steiner knew guns were placed in vehicle and continued participation after shots were fired | Court: Evidence supports advance knowledge; Rosemond claim meritless |
| Jury instructions & ineffective assistance | Trial court failed to instruct jury on Rosemond advance-notice rule; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Govt: Procedurally defaulted (not raised on direct appeal); counsel cannot be faulted for failing to predict future Supreme Court rule | Court: Claims are procedurally/time-barred; counsel not ineffective under then-binding precedent |
| Johnson vagueness challenge to § 924(c)(3)(B) | Johnson’s invalidation of ACCA residual clause applies to § 924(c)(3)(B) | Govt: Even if residual clause invalid, conviction independently satisfies § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause; Eleventh Circuit has held § 924(c)(3)(B) not invalidated by Johnson | Court: Johnson-based claim fails; conviction stands under force clause; Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (requires advance knowledge that a confederate will use or carry a gun for liability under § 924(c))
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson rule applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- In re Smith, 829 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016) (carjacking under § 2119 satisfies § 924(c)’s force clause)
- Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (Eleventh Circuit held Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B) in this circuit)
- Ardley v. United States, 273 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2001) (attorney not ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law)
- McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2001) (procedural-default principles apply to collateral attacks based on intervening Supreme Court decisions)