United States v. James Wheeler
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8815
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Wheeler pleaded guilty to attempted Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951(a)) and to discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii)), without reserving any appellate issues.
- The plea agreement expressly stated Wheeler surrendered any claims that could have been raised in pretrial motions.
- The district court sentenced Wheeler to 108 months on the Hobbs Act count and a consecutive 120 months on the §924(c) count (total 228 months).
- Wheeler later argued attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" for §924(c) because (a) the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and (b) the elements clause does not cover attempt.
- The government relied on precedent treating attempts as crimes of violence under the elements clause and on waiver by unconditional guilty plea.
- Wheeler also sought resentencing under Dean v. United States, arguing Roberson was superseded and the district court might have adjusted the predicate sentence to account for the consecutive §924(c) term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wheeler) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" for §924(c) | Attempt cannot meet the elements clause; residual clause is void for vagueness | Attempted robbery qualifies (elements clause) and, alternatively, waiver bars challenge | Waived by unconditional guilty plea; claim forfeited and R.11(a)(2) plea bars challenge |
| Whether residual clause vagueness (as in Cardena/Johnson/Dimaya) allows reopening after guilty plea | Residual clause in §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague and thus conviction invalid | Guilty plea waived such statutory challenges; Cardena/Johnson do not permit reopening via plea | Waiver controls; plea prevents using Johnson/Cardena to reopen conviction |
| Whether Davila should be reconsidered in light of Class v. United States | Counsel asked court to await/overrule Davila because Class was granted certiorari | Davila remains controlling; Wheeler does not claim §924(c) is facially invalid or a constitutional immunity | Court declines to revisit Davila; plea waiver stands |
| Whether Dean entitles Wheeler to resentencing given Roberson | Dean permits district courts to structure predicate sentence consistent with §3553(a); Roberson previously limited that | If judge was constrained by Roberson, resentencing would be required | No indication judge relied on Roberson; predicate sentence was above Guidelines, so Dean does not alter sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (held residual clauses like §924(c)(3)(B) are void for vagueness)
- United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017) (Hobbs Act robbery requires actual or threatened force)
- United States v. Armour, 840 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2016) (treated attempted bank robbery as a crime of violence under §924 clauses)
- Morris v. United States, 827 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2016) (concurrence concluding attempt to commit a crime of violence is itself a crime of violence under §924(e))
- Davila v. United States, 843 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2016) (guilty plea waives challenges under Johnson/Cardena to §924(c) convictions)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (§924(c) consecutive requirement does not forbid district courts from structuring predicate sentences to achieve an appropriate aggregate under §3553(a))
- United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (held district courts must not reduce predicate sentence to offset consecutive §924(c) term)