United States v. Eric Bernard Smith
698 F. App'x 155
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eric Bernard Smith is a federal prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on prior drug-felony predicates.
- Smith filed a motion seeking relief from his life sentence, asserting claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alternatively § 2241, and via writs of coram nobis or audita querela.
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion as an unauthorized successive petition (Smith lacked prefiling authorization from the Fourth Circuit) and denied the alternative remedies.
- The district court also rejected Smith’s Simmons-based challenge to the predicate North Carolina convictions in a § 2241 petition on other grounds.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability as to the successive § 2255 dismissal, affirmed the denials of coram nobis and audita querela relief, and held that Smith’s Simmons claim fails as a matter of law under Fourth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred dismissing Smith’s filing as a successive § 2255 without authorization | Smith argued his motion challenged the legality of his life sentence and should proceed | Government argued the motion was a successive § 2255 and Smith lacked required preauthorization | Denied COA; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction over an unauthorized successive § 2255 |
| Whether Smith could obtain relief via coram nobis or audita querela | Smith sought post-conviction relief via these extraordinary writs to attack his sentence | Government opposed; district court found no basis for relief | Fourth Circuit affirmed district court’s denial — no reversible error |
| Whether Smith may bring a Simmons challenge to predicate convictions in a § 2241 petition | Smith argued his 1997 NC plea-based convictions did not expose him to >1 year imprisonment, so they cannot be predicate felonies under Simmons | Government argued Simmons does not help because North Carolina’s sentencing regime, not plea agreements, determines whether a conviction is punishable by >1 year; thus predicates stand | Court held Simmons claim fails as matter of law under United States v. Valdovinos — North Carolina’s sentencing scheme controls; § 2241 relief denied |
| Whether Surratt-related abeyance affects resolution | Smith relied on related Circuit developments (Surratt) to support his claims | Government noted Surratt is moot and subsequent precedent controls | Court removed case from abeyance and resolved on existing precedent; appeal dismissed in part and affirmed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (certificate of appealability standards)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (certificate of appealability standards)
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (standards for successive § 2255 and COA)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (definition of predicate felony under ACCA/Simmons framework)
- United States v. Valdovinos, 760 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2014) (North Carolina’s sentencing regime, not plea agreement, determines whether conviction is punishable by >1 year)
- United States v. Surratt, 855 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2017) (related Circuit development referenced on abeyance)