United States v. Cloud
197 F. Supp. 3d 1263
E.D. Wash.2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 2010 to burglary on an Indian reservation (18 U.S.C. § 1153 / RCW 9A.52.025) and possession of stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)), pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea calling for a total 150-month sentence and including a collateral-review waiver.
- The PSR treated the defendant as having at least two prior qualifying felonies (residential burglary and second-degree burglary), producing a base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) and a Guidelines range of 110–137 months; the court imposed 150 months total (120 + 30 consecutive).
- After Johnson v. United States held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness, defendant filed a § 2255 motion arguing the identical residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is invalid and his prior burglaries therefore do not qualify as "crimes of violence."
- Government argued the collateral-review waiver and the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea preclude relief and that Johnson is not retroactive to Guidelines sentencing; defendant argued Johnson is retroactive and invalidates the Sentencing Guidelines residual clause.
- The court ruled the collateral-review waiver did not bar a constitutional challenge; Freeman/Austin precedent no longer blocked revisiting an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence; and, applying Descamps and Ninth Circuit precedent, concluded Washington residential burglary and second-degree burglary are not categorical matches for generic burglary and thus are not predicate "crimes of violence."
- Court granted the § 2255 motion, vacated the sentence insofar as it relied on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), and ordered resentencing with an expedited amended PSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Defendant) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates the Guidelines residual clause | Johnson voids the identical residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), so prior burglaries no longer qualify | Johnson is non-retroactive to Guidelines or does not apply to an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence | Court: Johnson applies to the Guidelines; residual clause invalid for defendant |
| Whether collateral-review waiver bars § 2255 Johnson claim | Waiver contained exception only for newly discovered ineffective assistance; otherwise barred | Waiver should be enforced to bar collateral attack | Court: waiver does not bar constitutional vagueness challenge to sentencing law |
| Whether the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea precludes revisiting the sentence | Sentence was negotiated under 11(c)(1)(C) and thus fixed | Freeman/Austin interplay; Davis (en banc) permits reconsideration; plea contemplated differing court sentence | Court: 11(c)(1)(C) status does not prevent § 2255 relief or resentencing here |
| Whether Washington burglary statutes qualify as "crimes of violence" after Descamps | Defendant: Washington statutes are broader than generic burglary and indivisible, so they do not qualify | Government: prior convictions qualified and supported Guidelines enhancement | Court: Washington residential burglary and second-degree burglary are overbroad and indivisible; do not qualify as predicate offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson rule is substantive and retroactive on collateral review in ACCA context)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (three-step categorical/modified-categorical framework)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (generic burglary definition for categorical analysis)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity doctrine for new rules on collateral review)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (Guidelines are the starting point and benchmark for sentencing)
- Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying substantive-rule/retroactivity logic from ACCA to Guidelines enhancement)
- United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (prior Ninth Circuit burglary interpretation relevant to categorical analysis)
- United States v. Coronado, 603 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2010) (similar interpretation of ACCA and Guidelines residual clauses)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (§ 2255 standard: fundamental defect/miscarriage of justice)