United States v. Lide
3:09-cr-00826
D.S.C.May 25, 2017Background
- Alfred Outen, III pleaded guilty in 2009 to (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine/cocaine base and (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; he waived most § 2255 rights in his plea agreement except claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct.
- The PSR identified two prior state felony convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (2001 and 2003), which the probation officer used to classify Outen as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1(b).
- At sentencing in 2010 Outen received 322 months’ imprisonment (262 months on the drug count, consecutive 60 months on the gun count).
- Outen filed a pro se §2255 motion in 2016 arguing his career-offender enhancement was undermined by Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States.
- The Government moved to dismiss; the court found Johnson/Welch inapplicable to predicate drug convictions and held Beckles left the career-offender guideline intact, so Outen’s career-offender status remained valid.
- The court dismissed the §2255 motion as meritless and untimely and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Outen's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson (and its retroactivity via Welch) invalidates Outen’s career-offender enhancement | Johnson/Welch void ACCA residual clause; similar vagueness challenge should invalidate the Guidelines residual clause and foreclose using prior convictions to enhance sentence | Johnson/Welch applied to ACCA violent-felony residual clause, not to predicate drug offenses; Beckles confirms advisory §4B1.2 residual clause is not void for vagueness | Denied — Outen’s predicates are drug offenses unaffected by Johnson/Welch/Beckles; career-offender status stands |
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f) given Johnson/Welch | If Johnson applies retroactively, §2255(f)(3) tolls limitations and the motion is timely | Johnson does not affect drug-predicate-based career-offender status, so §2255(f)(3) does not apply; motion filed after the one-year period | Denied — §2255 motion is untimely because Johnson/Welch do not create a new, applicable right for Outen |
| Whether prior convictions qualify as career-offender predicates | Prior crack-distribution convictions qualify as controlled-substance predicates supporting career-offender enhancement | Same — Government contends the prior drug convictions are valid predicates | Held — Both prior drug convictions qualify; career-offender enhancement was proper |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability (COA) | Outen asserts constitutional claim warrants review | Government argues no substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right; the issues are not debatable | Denied — Court finds no substantial showing; COA not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutional) (voids ACCA residual clause for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (holding Johnson’s rule is retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (holding advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for reviewing COA where procedural ruling is dispositive)