United States v. Amer
2012 WL 1621005
5th Cir.2012Background
- Amer pleaded guilty to distribution of pseudoephedrine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), making him deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227.
- He was sentenced to 30 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release; no direct appeal; conviction final on February 24, 2009.
- On March 31, 2010, Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment requires advising noncitizen defendants about removal consequences.
- Amer moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting ineffective assistance for failure to inform him of deportation risk; district court granted relief.
- Government appealed; Fifth Circuit confronted Teague retroactivity to determine if Padilla applies to pre-Padilla final convictions.
- The court held Padilla announced a new rule under Teague and is not retroactive, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Padilla's retroactivity under Teague | Amer argues Padilla is retroactive under Teague. | Government contends Padilla is not retroactive. | Padilla is a new Teague rule; not retroactive. |
| Whether Padilla applies to Amer's final conviction | Padilla should apply to vacate final conviction. | Padilla does not apply retroactively to final cases. | Padilla does not apply retroactively; cannot support § 2255 relief. |
| Impact on district court proceedings | Relief granted based on Padilla, which is retroactive. | Relief premised on non-retroactive rule; should be reversed. | District court order vacating sentence reversed; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment duty to advise on removal consequences)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new constitutional rules generally not retroactive to final convictions)
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1997) (dictated by precedent test for Teague reliability)
- Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2004) (clarified assertion of what constitutes dictated precedent)
- O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1997) ( Teague framework and consideration of controlling authority)