United States v. Coates
688 F. App'x 578
10th Cir.2017Background
- Michael Allen Coates pleaded guilty in 2010 under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense; he was sentenced to 20 years plus five years supervised release.
- His direct appeal was affirmed. He filed a § 2255 motion in 2016 asserting ten grounds, including claims based on Johnson and Welch, ineffective assistance, due process, double jeopardy, constitutionality of § 924(c), eligibility for retroactive Guideline amendments, and decisions in Henderson and Little.
- The district court denied relief, concluding Johnson/Welch did not apply, and dismissed other grounds as time-barred, procedurally barred, or foreclosed by Tenth Circuit precedent; it denied a COA.
- On appeal for a COA, Coates presses only his claim (ground nine) that he should receive the benefit of a retroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendment affecting defendants who pleaded under Rule 11(c)(1)(C).
- Coates relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Davis, which held Rule 11(c)(1)(C) defendants ordinarily benefit from retroactive Guideline changes; the Tenth Circuit follows prior precedent (Graham) holding it is bound by Justice Sotomayor’s Freeman concurrence and thus treats 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements that do not use a Guideline range as ineligible for benefit.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA and IFP status and dismissed the appeal, finding Coates failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that Davis does not alter binding Tenth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coates is entitled to retroactive benefit of a Guidelines amendment for a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea | Coates: Davis supports that 11(c)(1)(C) plea defendants ordinarily receive retroactive Guidelines reductions | Government/Tenth Cir.: Bound by Graham and Freeman concurrence—when plea does not employ a Guideline range, defendant is not entitled to the amendment | Denied — Tenth Circuit precedent controls; Davis does not change the result |
| Whether Johnson/Welch render Coates’s conviction vulnerable | Coates: Asserted Johnson/Welch issue (grounds 1–2) | Government: The residual clause issues are not implicated in his case | Denied — Johnson/Welch inapplicable |
| Whether other § 2255 claims were timely and procedurally cognizable | Coates: Raised multiple claims (ineffective assistance, due process, double jeopardy, § 924(c) constitutionality, Henderson/Little) | Government: Claims are time-barred, procedurally barred, or foreclosed by circuit law | Dismissed — claims barred or foreclosed |
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate resolution (COA standard) | Coates: Seeks COA based primarily on the Guidelines claim | Government: No substantial showing of denial of constitutional right; Tenth Circuit precedent governs | COA denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (addressing concurrence on treatment of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas)
- United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir.) (Tenth Circuit follows Freeman concurrence; 11(c)(1)(C) pleas that do not use a Guideline range are ineligible for amendment benefit)
- United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir.) (held 11(c)(1)(C) plea defendants ordinarily benefit from retroactive Guideline changes)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (addressing unconstitutional residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (applying Johnson to collateral review)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for certificate of appealability)
- In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723 (10th Cir.) (panel must follow prior panel precedent)
- United States v. Coates, [citation="483 F. App'x 488"] (10th Cir.) (affirming Coates’s sentence on direct appeal)