Stoney Lester v. J v. Flournoy
909 F.3d 708
4th Cir.2018Background
- In 2004 Stoney Lester pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack and was sentenced to 262 months after being designated a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §4B1.1).
- The career-offender designation relied on a 1990 Georgia "walkaway escape" conviction, which contemporaneous precedent treated as a "crime of violence."
- Later decisions (notably Chambers and subsequent circuit rulings) held that failure-to-report/escape offenses like Lester’s are not crimes of violence, meaning Lester’s Guidelines range would have been 121–151 months rather than 262–327 months.
- Lester had already pursued and lost a §2255 motion, so he filed a §2241 habeas petition invoking the §2255 savings clause, which the district court denied (reasoning the savings clause didn’t cover Guidelines errors falling below the statutory maximum).
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit applied its decision in United States v. Wheeler, which permits a savings-clause §2241 challenge to certain fundamentally defective sentences; the court held Lester meets Wheeler’s four-part test and vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2255’s savings clause allows a §2241 challenge to Lester’s sentence | Lester: his career-offender designation is invalid post-Chambers, so §2255 is inadequate and §2241 is available | Gov: Wheeler is distinguishable; Lester had a Guidelines (not statutory) error and Foote forecloses relief | Allowed: Wheeler controls; Lester may proceed under §2241 via the savings clause |
| Whether the sentencing error is a "fundamental defect" | Lester: erroneous enhancement raised mandatory Guidelines floor from max 151 months to min 262 months — a deprivation of district-court sentencing discretion | Gov: Guidelines lack statutory force; separation-of-powers rationale for statutory minimums doesn’t apply; Foote precludes relief for Guidelines errors | Held: Error is fundamentally defective under Wheeler because it unlawfully deprived the sentencing court of discretion |
| Whether Foote bars relief because Guidelines are now advisory | Lester: sentenced pre-Booker when Guidelines were mandatory, so Foote is inapplicable | Gov: Foote should govern because it rejected similar claims about career-offender misapplication | Held: Foote does not apply to pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines sentences; Wheeler distinguishes Foote |
| Whether relief would improperly bypass §2255’s gatekeeping | Lester: Wheeler’s four-part test preserves gatekeeping while permitting narrow savings-clause relief for grave sentencing errors | Gov: Expanding the savings clause would nullify §2255(h) restrictions | Held: Court applies Wheeler’s narrow framework; relief is permitted only where Wheeler’s criteria are met |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018) (establishes four-part test allowing savings-clause §2241 challenges to certain fundamentally defective sentences)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Guidelines advisory, not mandatory)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (held generic failure-to-report-to-prison is not a crime of violence)
- Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980) (due process violation where invalid enhancement deprived defendant of sentencing-body discretion)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (vacated sentence based on later-invalidated prior convictions because judge lacked informed discretion)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (interpreted prior-conviction predicate for sentencing; relevant post-sentencing change in substantive law)
- United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015) (held §2255 savings clause does not permit challenges to advisory-Guidelines misapplications for post-Booker sentences)
- United States v. Clay, 627 F.3d 959 (4th Cir. 2010) (circuit authority treating escape/offenses like Lester’s as not crimes of violence post-Chambers)
- United States v. Lee, 586 F.3d 859 (11th Cir. 2009) (similar holding to Clay regarding escape offense)
- Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2013) (permitted savings-clause challenge to pre-Booker career-offender misapplication)
- Hill v. Masters, 836 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognized fundamental significance of proper Guidelines range for savings-clause relief)
- United States v. Newbold, 791 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussed how incorrect sentencing benchmarks can falsely suggest lack of downward discretion)