United States v. Michael Palmer
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6407
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Palmer was convicted at trial in 1989 of continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), conspiracy, multiple § 924(c) counts, and other drug offenses; he received life without parole for CCE.
- Palmer filed a § 2255 motion in 2012 consolidating multiple challenges, arguing (inter alia) that Rutledge made conspiracy a lesser‑included offense of CCE and Anderson required merger of multiple § 924(c) counts.
- The government conceded merger for some counts; the district court vacated four § 924(c) convictions and the conspiracy conviction, following the common practice of excising the lesser‑included conspiracy rather than the CCE conviction.
- The district court entered an amended judgment in 2015 that removed the vacated counts but left Palmer’s original 1989 sentences otherwise intact; Palmer sought application of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) disparities to the amended judgment.
- The court of appeals considered whether the FSA applies to sentence revisions following a successful collateral attack under § 2255 and whether Palmer’s due‑process challenge to the CCE statute was procedurally barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) applies to the amended judgment entered after partial grant of § 2255 relief | Palmer: vacatur of the original judgment requires a new sentencing regime; FSA’s reduced penalties should apply to any subsequent sentencing event | Government: the district court performed a limited "correction," not a full resentencing; FSA does not apply to such corrections | The court affirmed: the district court’s action was a limited correction (not a plenary resentencing), so Palmer was not entitled to FSA relief |
| Whether vacating lesser‑included convictions required resentencing because sentences are a "package" | Palmer: excising CCE or conspiracy changes the sentencing calculus (e.g., parole eligibility) and thus requires resentencing | Government: vacating merged lesser convictions is routine and need not trigger resentencing absent evidence the original sentence depended on the vacated counts | Held: no sentencing package issue here; district court properly applied standard practice to vacate the lesser offense and left other sentences intact |
| Procedural default of facial due‑process challenge to § 848(b) (CCE statute) | Palmer: § 848(b) failed to define a criminal offense and violated due process | Government: Palmer failed to raise the issue on direct appeal and shows no cause or prejudice; claim is procedurally defaulted | Held: claim is procedurally defaulted and not excused by actual innocence; court therefore declined relief |
| Substantive claim that § 848(b) is unconstitutionally vague because of a statutory drafting error | Palmer: the cross‑reference to subsection (d)(1) rather than (c)(1) rendered § 848(b) invalid | Government: the drafting error is evident and should be corrected to reflect congressional intent | Held: court construed the provision to refer to (c)(1) as a scrivener’s error; correcting the error comports with statutory purpose and gives no relief to Palmer |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (FSA applies to offenders who committed pre‑Act offenses but were sentenced after the Act took effect)
- United States v. Bigesby, 685 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (FSA is not retroactive to defendants sentenced before its enactment)
- United States v. Swangin, 726 F.3d 205 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) reductions after FSA do not entitle pre‑Act defendants to FSA penalties)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (post‑finality resentencings on limited grounds are "limited adjustments," not plenary resentencings)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy can be a lesser‑included offense of CCE)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (procedural default rules and actual‑innocence gateway for collateral review)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory Guidelines invalidated; Booker error does not apply retroactively on collateral review)