United States v. Joseph Newbold
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11203
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Newbold pleaded guilty in 2005 to distributing a controlled substance, money laundering, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- PSR treated three NC convictions from 1980–1984 as ACCA predicates, yielding a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Newbold challenged the predicate status of a 1984 PWID conviction as not punishable by ten years; the court rejected this pre-Simmons approach.
- The Fourth Circuit overruled Harp and adopted Simmons, holding no hypothetical aggravating factors may be used to extend punishment beyond record evidence.
- After a complex procedural history, the Supreme Court remanded to consider Miller v. United States, which held Simmons retroactive.
- The panel held that Newbold may collaterally challenge the ACCA designation and vacated his sentence for remand consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simmons errors are cognizable on collateral review | Newbold relies on Simmons retroactivity for relief | Government contends collateral review remains limited | Cognizable under §2255 |
| Whether the 1984 PWID conviction can serve as an ACCA predicate | PWID faced only presumptive term; no aggravating factors recorded | Unrecorded aggravating factors may render it ten years | Not an ACCA predicate; maximum was the presumptive term |
| Whether Simmons applies to the ACCA and requires different analysis than Harp | Simmons governs maximum punishment, not hypothetical worst-case | Harp logic may extend to ACCA under some interpretations | Simmons applies; look to actual record and history, not hypotheticals |
| Whether McNeill undermines the result | McNeill could require state-law rules at time of conviction | McNeill does not contradict Simmons here | No contradiction; McNeill not controlling on the point |
| What is the proper remedy upon collateral review | Illegal sentence due to improper ACCA designation | Remand unnecessary if error cannot be cured | Vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with Miller/Simmons framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (retrospective rule; no hypothetical enhancement outside record)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (S. Ct. 2010) (limits on counting a prior offense for ACCA-like effects)
- Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2013) (Simmons retroactive to collateral review)
- United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012) (Carachuri not retroactively applicable on collateral review (pre-Miller))
- Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (sentences in excess of statutory maximum cognizable on §2255)
- United States v. Kerr, 737 F.3d 33 (4th Cir. 2013) (apply Simmons by examining offense class and aggravated range)
- United States v. Lockett, 782 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2015) (no ACCA predicate where record shows no ten-year sentence)
- United States v. McNeill, 131 S. Ct. 2218 (Supreme Court 2011) (state-law rules at conviction time; contextual for ACCA)
- Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (Section 2255 scope mirrors habeas corpus rights)