United States v. Robert Myers, 691 F. App'x 411

Myers pleaded guilty in 2007 to one count of bank robbery and was sentenced to 151 months.
The district court designated Myers a career offender, producing a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
The career-offender designation relied in part on a 1990 Washington second-degree burglary conviction.
After Descamps v. United States, Myers filed a § 2255 motion arguing the 1990 burglary no longer qualified as a "crime of violence" under the modified categorical approach, so his career-offender status was erroneous.
Myers also argued his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the career-offender designation.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Myers can collaterally attack his sentence given his plea-waiver	Myers: Plea waiver doesn’t bar this collateral attack because Descamps is an "explicitly retroactive change" or the waiver is unenforceable as the sentence "violates the law"	Government: Plea agreement unambiguously waives collateral attacks except for ineffective-assistance or explicitly-retroactive Guideline changes; Descamps is not such a change and the sentence is lawful	Waiver bars collateral attack; Descamps is a clarification, not an explicitly retroactive change, and the sentence is lawful, so waiver is enforceable
Ineffective-assistance claim for failing to challenge career-offender status	Myers: Counsel was ineffective for not contesting career-offender designation under principles later clarified in Descamps	Government: At sentencing counsel reasonably relied on then-binding Ninth Circuit precedent; counsel is not required to predict future changes in law	Claim fails on the merits: counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable given binding circuit precedent at the time

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified limits of modified categorical approach)
United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
United States v. Guerrero-Velasquez, 434 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2006) (permitting modified categorical approach for Washington second-degree burglary at that time)
United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (describing broader use of documents under the modified categorical approach as understood pre-Descamps)
Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding Descamps is a clarification, not an explicitly retroactive change)
United States v. Charles, 581 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of plea-agreement waiver language)
United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2007) (plea waivers enforceable where sentence lawful and within statutory limits)
Clark v. Arnold, 769 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2014) (counsel not required to be prescient about legal change)
Lowry v. Lewis, 21 F.3d 344 (9th Cir. 1994) (ineffective-assistance performance evaluated based on law at time of conduct)