United States v. Hoskins
905 F.3d 97
2d Cir.2018Background
- Brian Hoskins pled guilty in 2012 pursuant to a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement calling for a 112-month sentence for distributing crack cocaine. The parties and district court had treated him as a career offender, which raised his advisory Guidelines range substantially. Hoskins did not appeal the sentence.
- In 2015 a Vermont court vacated Hoskins's 2002 state drug conviction (one of two predicates for career-offender status) because of defects in the plea colloquy.
- Hoskins filed a § 2255 motion arguing that vacatur of the state conviction eliminated his career-offender status and that maintaining the 112-month Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence would be a "miscarriage of justice."
- The government argued the § 2255 claim was not cognizable because the 112-month term was a bargained-for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence (also avoiding a superseding indictment and a 10-year mandatory minimum), the term fell within the Guidelines range applicable without the career-offender enhancement, and collateral relief was untimely.
- The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s R&R, held the § 2255 claim cognizable, vacated the 112-month sentence, and resentenced Hoskins to 86 months; Hoskins completed that term and is on supervised release.
- The Second Circuit reversed: it held Hoskins failed to show the required "complete miscarriage of justice" to make his § 2255 challenge cognizable and directed the district court to reinstate the original 112-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Hoskins's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant can obtain collateral relief under § 2255 when a state conviction used to designate him a career offender is later vacated, but the sentence was a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) bargain | Vacatur of the predicate conviction eliminated career-offender status; keeping the original sentence would be a miscarriage of justice | The 112-month term was a bargained-for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence that (a) avoided a superseding indictment/mandatory minimum, (b) fell within the non-career-offender Guidelines range, and (c) is not subject to collateral attack | Denied: § 2255 relief not cognizable because Hoskins failed to show a "complete miscarriage of justice" |
| Whether a lower advisory Guidelines calculation (post-vacatur) renders the earlier acceptance of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement infirm | Court relied on career-offender Guidelines when accepting the plea, so vacatur later undermines the basis for acceptance | A district court’s reliance on an advisory Guidelines range when accepting a Type C plea does not automatically produce a miscarriage of justice; the sentence must be fundamentally defective | Denied: advisory nature of Guidelines and the benefits Hoskins received make the original sentence lawful |
| Whether Supreme Court precedent allowing reopening of enhanced federal sentences after vacatur of state convictions (in the mandatory-minimum/ACCA context) controls here | Analogizes to Daniels/Custis/Johnson to support cognizability | Those cases addressed mandatory statutory enhancements; this is an advisory-Guidelines, Rule 11(c)(1)(C) context with different finality concerns | Denied: Daniels/Custis/Johnson do not compel collateral relief under § 2255 here |
| Whether Hughes (§ 3582(c)(2) precedent about Type-C agreements) requires a different result under § 2255 | Relies on Hughes to argue the sentence was "based on" the Guidelines and thus invalid once a predicate was vacated | Hughes concerns § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions and uniformity; § 2255 has a narrower finality-focused standard (miscarriage of justice) | Denied: Hughes is inapposite to § 2255 miscarriage-of-justice analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Addonizio v. United States, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (collateral attack requires error rising to a "complete miscarriage of justice")
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (§ 2255 relief limited to fundamental defects producing miscarriage of justice)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (district courts must calculate Guidelines range when sentencing post-Booker)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences on direct review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing requires individualized § 3553(a) assessment)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (distinguishes timeliness and cognizability regarding vacated state convictions and federal sentence enhancements)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (successful challenge to state conviction can permit reopening of federal sentence enhanced by that conviction in certain statutory contexts)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (same principle in ACCA/mandatory minimum context)
- Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (Type-C plea sentences are "based on" Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2) reduction purposes; inapplicable to § 2255 miscarriage analysis)
- Foote v. United States, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015) (post-Booker advisory-Guidelines career-offender errors do not necessarily permit collateral § 2255 relief)