United States v. Tevin Wright
681 F. App'x 418
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wright pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)) and waived appellate rights in his plea agreement.
- The district court increased his U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 base offense level two levels, treating a prior Texas conviction for delivery of a controlled substance as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, yielding a Guidelines range of 100–120 months; the court sentenced Wright to 96 months.
- Wright appealed; this Court initially affirmed on plain-error review, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Mathis v. United States.
- After Mathis, this Court decided in United States v. Hinkle that a Texas delivery conviction is not a "controlled substance offense" under the Guidelines.
- On remand Wright argued (1) his appellate-waiver does not bar a Mathis-based claim, (2) raising the issue first in a certiorari petition is not fatal, and (3) the sentence must be vacated under plain-error review.
- The government had conceded to the Supreme Court that remand for consideration in light of Mathis was appropriate and did not press waiver below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate-waiver as to a Mathis-based claim | Waiver cannot cover unknown future legal rights; Mathis/Hinkle were decided after sentencing so waiver is unenforceable | Waiver precludes the claim because it exists in the plea agreement | Waiver did not bar the claim; and the Government waived asserting waiver by not enforcing it |
| Consideration of an issue first raised in a certiorari petition | Raising Mathis-based claim at cert stage is acceptable because the right was unavailable earlier and Mathis/Hinkle are intervening law | Failure to show "extraordinary circumstances" to consider a new issue on appeal | Court considered the claim because the Government sought remand and Mathis/Hinkle qualified as intervening authority |
| Whether classification of Texas delivery conviction as a "controlled substance offense" was legal error | Mathis and Hinkle show the Texas statute is indivisible and not a Guidelines "controlled substance offense" | Error is foreclosed by waiver or not plain at sentencing | The district court erred: after Mathis/Hinkle the conviction is not a Guidelines "controlled substance offense" |
| Whether error is reversible under plain-error review | The error was clear/obvious, affected substantial rights (changed Guidelines range), and impacts fairness/integrity | Any error is waived or not plain at the time of sentencing | Error satisfied plain-error prongs; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statute divisibility rule for applying the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (post-Mathis holding that Texas delivery conviction is not a Guidelines "controlled substance offense")
- United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that offer to sell is not a "controlled substance offense" under the Guidelines)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (reasonable-probability standard for prejudice when Guidelines range is affected)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013) (timing for when an error becomes "plain" on review)
- United States v. Troxler, [citation="390 F. App'x 363"] (5th Cir. 2010) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)