202 F. Supp. 3d 1197
E.D. Wash.2016Background
- Casey D. Beckham pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea resolving two indictments: felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and methamphetamine distribution, with a stipulated 188-month term and 10 years supervised release.
- The Presentence Report classified Beckham as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) and career offender based on multiple Washington first- and second-degree burglary convictions, producing a Guidelines range that informed acceptance of the plea.
- The Government argued at sentencing the ACCA enhancement rested on the residual clause; Beckham was sentenced to concurrent 188-month terms and did not appeal.
- Beckham filed § 2255 motions after Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, arguing his Washington burglary convictions no longer qualify as violent felonies and his ACCA-based sentence therefore exceeds statutory maxima.
- The Government urged the court to dismiss on concurrent-sentence grounds (no change to custody), but the court found the sentencing package and Guidelines calculation intertwined the counts, so ACCA invalidation affected the whole sentencing scheme.
- The court granted relief: Beckham’s judgments were vacated and he will be resentenced; supplemental PSR and sentencing memoranda were ordered, and Beckham remains in custody pending resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Beckham's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beckham’s Washington burglary convictions remain ACCA "violent felonies" after Johnson | Johnson invalidates ACCA residual clause; Washington burglary statutes do not categorically match the elements clause, so they are not ACCA predicates | At sentencing Government had invoked the residual clause; implies ACCA still applied then | Court: Johnson removes those burglary convictions as ACCA predicates; ACCA enhancement invalid here |
| Whether Beckham’s ACCA-based firearm sentence and supervised release exceed statutory maxima now | Sentence exceeds statutory maximums for a non-ACCA offender; relief under § 2255 is warranted | Argues relief would be ineffectual due to concurrent sentences (concurrent-sentence doctrine) | Court: Firearm sentence and supervised release exceed authorized maximums; § 2255 relief granted |
| Whether the court should decline relief under the concurrent-sentence doctrine | Beckham says sentencing package and Guidelines interdependence mean relief will affect other counts; seeks resentencing not vacatur of plea | Government: success on the firearm claim won't change custody because sentences are concurrent; court can decline on judicial-economy grounds | Court: Rejects concurrent-sentence doctrine; sentencing package doctrine applies; court will resentence both counts |
| Scope of relief and remedy: vacate just the ACCA sentence or resentence package including drug count | Beckham seeks resentencing but not to withdraw plea; asks for correction of unlawful sentence only | Government invoked doctrines to limit relief; pointed to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) nature of plea and cases holding whole plea might fall | Court: Vacates judgments and orders resentencing on both indictments under sentencing-package principles; retains discretion to recalculate sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson error is retroactive on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach and divisible/indivisible statutes analysis)
- United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (Washington burglary not a categorical match to generic burglary)
- United States v. Ruiz-Alvarez, 211 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2000) (when a conviction is vacated district court may recalculate and resentence remaining convictions)
- United States v. Barron, 172 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (when a plea conviction is vacated court may resentence remaining counts considering relevant Guidelines enhancements)
- United States v. Catrell, 774 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2014) (sentencing-package doctrine can apply to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (discussion of concurrent-sentence doctrine and its discretionary nature)
- United States v. De Bright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984) (abandonment of concurrent-sentence doctrine on direct appeal in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 1996) (if a plea under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) is invalid in part, the whole agreement may be void)