605 F.Supp.3d 1079
N.D. Ill.2022Background:
- On Nov. 7, 2019, Reginald Taylor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two concurrent 180‑month terms: one under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) enhanced by the ACCA and one under 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
- Taylor filed a § 2255 motion (July 8, 2021) claiming (1) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to seek 587 days of credit for pre‑sentence state custody and (2) that subsequent Seventh Circuit precedent (Glispie) shows an Illinois residential burglary conviction cannot serve as an ACCA predicate, so his ACCA enhancement is invalid.
- The government raised timeliness and nonretroactivity arguments and contested merits. Taylor also argued § 2255(f)(2) and equitable tolling due to transfers and COVID‑19 lockdowns limiting access to legal materials.
- The court declined to resolve the statute‑of‑limitations dispute because Taylor’s claims fail on the merits.
- The court held (1) counsel’s omission did not constitute prejudice because the BOP—not the district court—calculates and grants credit under § 3585(b), and (2) even if the ACCA enhancement were invalid under Mathis/Glispie, Taylor’s concurrent 180‑month § 1951 sentence would remain unchanged, so he is not entitled to resentencing.
- The § 2255 motion was denied and a certificate of appealability was denied.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / tolling of § 2255 | Petition untimely; Glispie not a Supreme Court rule to restart clock; transfers/COVID not warrant tolling | Filed timely under § 2255(f)(2)/(f)(3); equitable tolling due to transfers and lockdowns | Court avoided deciding timeliness; resolved on merits and denied petition |
| Access to legal materials as § 2255(f)(2) impediment | Transfers and limited library access not government action violating law that would qualify as § 2255(f)(2) impediment | Transfers without legal materials and limited libraries prevented timely filing | Court assumed arguendo possible merit to tolling but denied relief on merits |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request 587 days credit | No prejudice: BOP, not district court, must compute credit; counsel reasonably understood this | Counsel should have asked for a sentencing recommendation or raised credit at sentencing | Failure to request did not constitute ineffective assistance because (a) court could not order credit, (b) statute mandates BOP credit, and (c) no shown prejudice |
| ACCA predicate challenge (Glispie/Mathis) and remedy | Glispie not retroactive; even if ACCA enhancement invalid, relief unnecessary because concurrent § 1951 sentence unaffected | Mathis/Glispie render the Illinois residential burglary conviction an invalid ACCA predicate, so enhancement unlawful and resentencing required | ACCA claim has merit under Mathis/Glispie and is cognizable on § 2255, but eliminating ACCA enhancement would not change Taylor’s custody due to the concurrent 180‑month § 1951 sentence; resentencing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (elements/generic‑offense rule for ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Glispie, 978 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2020) (Illinois residential burglary not an ACCA predicate under Mathis)
- United States v. Walker, 917 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2019) (only BOP/Attorney General computes pre‑sentence credit under § 3585(b))
- Chazen v. Marske, 938 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2019) (§ 2255 is proper vehicle to challenge ACCA sentencing error)
- Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (concurrent‑sentence doctrine: invalidating one sentence may not affect custody if another concurrent sentence stands)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (BOP authority to compute sentence credit)