United States v. Gerald Wheeler
886 F.3d 415
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Gerald Wheeler pleaded guilty (2007) to drug and firearm offenses; the Government filed a §851 information relying on a 1996 North Carolina cocaine conviction, making his statutory mandatory minimum 10 years (120 months) for the conspiracy count.
- District court sentenced Wheeler to 120 months on the conspiracy count (statutory mandatory minimum); this sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Wheeler filed a §2255 (2010) claiming counsel was ineffective for not challenging the 1996 conviction as a qualifying prior; the district court denied relief based on precedent (Harp and an earlier Simmons panel decision).
- En banc Simmons (2011) changed the test for whether state convictions qualify as predicate offenses by focusing on the particular defendant’s actual exposure, and Miller (2013) made Simmons retroactive on collateral review.
- Wheeler sought to use §2255(e)’s savings clause to bring a §2241 habeas petition challenging his enhanced sentence; the district court denied the §2241 petition, concluding the savings clause did not cover his sentencing challenge.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding (1) the savings clause is jurisdictional and (2) Wheeler meets a Jones-based test adapted for sentencing errors, so his §2241 petition may proceed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the §2255(e) savings-clause requirement jurisdictional (non-waivable)? | Wheeler: savings clause not jurisdictional; Government waived by previously conceding eligibility. | Government: savings clause bars district courts from entertaining §2241 unless its requirements are met (no waiver). | Court: savings clause is jurisdictional; parties cannot waive it. |
| Can a sentencing error (enhanced mandatory minimum) qualify for the savings clause? | Wheeler: Jones permits savings-clause access for fundamental defects; Simmons retroactively nullifies the predicate conviction, so his mandatory minimum is invalid. | Government: savings clause should be limited; Surratt panel had restricted use to convictions (not sentences). | Court: Jones can extend to fundamental sentencing defects; sentencing errors can pass through the savings clause. |
| What test governs savings-clause access for sentencing errors? | Wheeler: apply Jones criteria (adapted) to sentencing errors given retroactive change in circuit law. | Government: urges narrower reading and relies on McCarthan (Eleventh Circuit) to set a higher bar. | Court: adopts a four-part test: (1) at sentencing settled circuit or Supreme Court law upheld the sentence; (2) after direct appeal and first §2255, controlling substantive law changed and was made retroactive; (3) petitioner cannot meet §2255(h) gatekeeping; (4) the error is a "fundamental defect." |
| Did Wheeler meet the adapted Jones test such that his §2241 may proceed? | Wheeler: Simmons (retroactive) made the 1996 conviction non-qualifying, halving his statutory minimum; he cannot file a second §2255 under §2255(h). | Government: now argues Wheeler does not meet the savings-clause requirements. | Court: Wheeler satisfies the four-part test; the enhanced mandatory minimum is a sufficiently grave fundamental defect. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000) (established savings-clause test permitting §2241 when §2255 is inadequate)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding courts must consider the particular defendant’s actual maximum exposure when determining whether a prior conviction qualifies)
- Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2013) (held Simmons applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (example of a change in substantive law that can invalidate earlier convictions)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (discusses jurisdictional prerequisites and COA framework)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (recognizes the link between statutory sentencing floors and the punishment imposed)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (vacatur/remand required where sentence was based on materially untrue assumptions about prior convictions)
- Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802 (4th Cir. 2010) (held that inability to satisfy savings-clause bars §2241 jurisdiction)
- McCarthan v. Dir., Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (took a textualist, narrower approach to savings-clause access)
- United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005) (prior circuit precedent treating state conviction exposure based on hypothetical worst-case criminal history)