United States v. Carey
664 F. App'x 716
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Tyrone Carey pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)) and was sentenced to 51 months, at the bottom of his Guidelines range.
- His presentence report included a six‑level enhancement under the Guidelines’ residual clause, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), producing a higher advisory range (51–63 mos. vs. 27–33 mos. without the enhancement).
- After Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Carey filed a § 2255 motion arguing the Guidelines’ residual clause is invalid and seeking resentencing.
- The government moved to stay the § 2255 proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s resolution in Beckles v. United States, and the district court granted the stay.
- Carey immediately appealed; the Tenth Circuit construed his appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act and addressed whether mandamus relief was warranted to require the district court to rule on the § 2255 motion.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded the stay was an abuse of discretion, granted mandamus, directed the district court to vacate its stay, and ordered it to decide the § 2255 motion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s stay is immediately appealable as a final order | Carey: stay effectively refuses relief and is appealable under Carson/Wilkinson | Gov’t: sought stay pending Beckles; did not brief appealability here | Court avoided deciding finality; construed appeal as mandamus petition instead |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to vacate the stay and require merits ruling | Carey: mandamus needed to prevent irreparable harm from prolonged confinement | Gov’t: urged stay pending Supreme Court decision (briefed mandamus issues) | Mandamus granted under Clyma factors; district court ordered to vacate stay and rule on §2255 |
| Whether the stay was an abuse of discretion | Carey: indefinite stay delays habeas remedy and causes irreparable harm | Gov’t: stay appropriate while Beckles would resolve the controlling question | Court: stay was an abuse of discretion because habeas relief should be decided promptly |
| Whether Johnson invalidates U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(a) residual clause for Carey’s sentence | Carey: Johnson renders the residual clause invalid, lowering his Guidelines range | Gov’t: pointed to Beckles as controlling and sought stay; did not concede on merits | Court did not decide the merits; remanded to district court to resolve the §2255 motion on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Beckles v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2510 (2016) (Supreme Court review of whether Johnson applies to Sentencing Guidelines residual clause)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (standards for interlocutory appealability of orders denying injunctive relief)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (habeas principles regarding requests for speedier release)
- Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., 594 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2010) (five-factor test for mandamus relief)
- Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283 (10th Cir. 1990) (habeas corpus as a swift and imperative remedy)
- United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 2014) (declining to await Supreme Court decision where delay would prejudice defendant)