United States v. Lamar Lee
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7249
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Lamar Richard Lee pled guilty (Mar. 18, 2013) to three drug counts (21 U.S.C. § 841) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
- U.S. Probation classified Lee as a Guidelines "career offender" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on 2008 Virginia convictions for unlawful wounding and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; defense counsel did not object at sentencing.
- The district court sentenced Lee as a career offender to 188 months; the Fourth Circuit affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Lee, 559 F. App’x 251 (4th Cir. 2014).
- Lee filed a § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to contest career-offender status, arguing his unlawful wounding conviction did not qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ residual clause, § 4B1.2(a)(2).
- After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, Lee sought a COA; this Court stayed the case pending Beckles and granted a COA to address whether Johnson made the district court’s denial debatable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not contesting career-offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) | Lee: unlawful wounding does not qualify as a "crime of violence"; counsel should have challenged career-offender enhancement | Govt: Lee forfeited a vagueness challenge; even if not, Guidelines’ residual clause is not vulnerable to Johnson-style vagueness attack | Court: Counsel not ineffective because Johnson does not invalidate the Guidelines’ residual clause; the district court correctly classified the conviction as a crime of violence |
| Whether Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to the Guidelines’ residual clause | Lee: Johnson’s reasoning should extend to § 4B1.2(a)(2), permitting relief | Govt: Johnson applies to ACCA but not to the nonbinding, advisory Guidelines | Court: Beckles holds Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges; Johnson does not apply to § 4B1.2(a)(2) |
| Whether a freestanding vagueness claim may be considered on collateral review after Johnson | Lee: Court may review a freestanding vagueness claim because Johnson intervened | Govt: Claim forfeited by not raising it in § 2255; collateral review limited | Court: Declines to resolve forfeiture because claim fails on the merits under Beckles |
| Whether Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review to challenge sentencing under Guidelines | Lee: Implicitly argues retroactivity supports relief | Govt: Opposes applicability/forfeiture | Court: Notes Welch held Johnson retroactive for ACCA, but Beckles forecloses vagueness attack on Guidelines, so no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson given retroactive effect on collateral review for ACCA challenges)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process Clause)
- United States v. Lee, [citation="559 F. App'x 251"] (4th Cir. 2014) (direct-appeal affirmation of Lee's sentence)