United States v. Richard Adams, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2872

Background

Adams pleaded guilty (2009) to three counts arising from armed robberies: robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951), a §924(c) firearm count, and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §922(g)). Five other counts were dismissed under the plea agreement.
The plea agreement included a broad waiver of appellate and collateral-attack rights (except for ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct); the district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy and confirmed Adams understood the waiver.
Adams was sentenced to a total of 240 months (concurrent 120-month terms for Counts 2 and 8, plus a consecutive 120 months for Count 3). This Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2011.
After United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), Adams filed a §2255 motion arguing his North Carolina prior convictions no longer qualified as felonies under Simmons, so he was actually innocent of §922(g).
The district court dismissed the §2255 motion as barred by the plea-waiver and denied relief; this Court granted a COA limited to whether the waiver barred Adams’s Simmons-based actual-innocence claim.
The Fourth Circuit concluded Adams’s Simmons-based claim alleges actual innocence and is therefore outside the waiver; the Court vacated the §922(g) conviction and directed entry of judgment for Adams.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid plea-waiver bars Adams’s Simmons-based §2255 claim	Adams: Simmons means his prior North Carolina convictions were not felonies, so he is actually innocent of §922(g) and the claim falls outside the waiver	Govt: Waiver remains valid; Simmons-based challenges to felon-in-possession claims fall within waivers (per Copeland)	Court: Actual-innocence showing (per Miller/Simmons) removes claim from waiver; waiver not enforced to bar relief
Whether Adams established "actual (factual) innocence" under Bousley	Adams: Under Simmons he was not a felon at the time of the firearm possession, so an essential element of §922(g) cannot be proved	Govt: Even if legally innocent, Adams is not factually innocent; also must be innocent of dismissed counts for plea-bargain context	Court: Adams proved factual innocence because Simmons means he was not in fact a felon, so the government cannot prove an element of §922(g)
Whether Adams must also show innocence of dismissed, more serious charges (per Bousley)	Adams: Dismissed counts involved different criminal conduct and do not bear on innocence of felon-in-possession element	Govt: Bousley requires showing innocence of more serious charges foregone in plea bargaining	Court: Bousley’s requirement focuses on the same underlying criminal conduct; because dismissed counts charged distinct conduct, Adams need not show innocence of those counts
Whether the court should reinstate dismissed counts or impose penalties for pursuing relief	Adams: Sought relief and requested delay to consult counsel; opposed reinstatement	Govt: Indicated it might seek to reinstate dismissed counts under §3296, potentially adding decades to sentence	Court: Declined to reinstate; warned that punishing pursuit of lawful relief would violate due process (Goodwin principle)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (held North Carolina prior offenses count as felonies only if defendant actually faced >1 year imprisonment)
Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2013) (Simmons renders some §922(g)(1) convictions invalid and those defendants actually innocent)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 612 (1998) (actual innocence means factual innocence; plea-bargain context may require innocence of forgone charges when charges involve same conduct)
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (valid plea waivers can bar Simmons-based sentencing challenges absent miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (prosecutorial decisions to punish conduct the law allows implicate due process)