United States v. Thomas
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26298
4th Cir.2010Background
- Thomas pleaded guilty in 2005 to attempted possession of methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, with sentences of 30 and 60 months to run consecutively; judgment entered August 30, 2006, no direct appeal.
- On October 10, 2008, Thomas filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging the 924(c) conviction was invalid and seeking sentence relief, arguing timeliness under § 2255(f)(3) based on Watson.
- The district court dismissed as untimely under § 2255(f)(1) and rejected the § 2255(f)(3) argument, holding Watson did not announce a retroactive new rule.
- The government agreed Watson recognized a new rule retroactively applicable on collateral review; the court-appointed counsel pursued the issue on appeal with a certificate of appealability.
- The Fourth Circuit held § 2255(f)(3) permits retroactivity determinations by courts other than the Supreme Court and that Watson announces a new substantive right retroactively applicable to collateral review.
- The case was vacated and remanded for further district court proceedings to develop the precise basis of Thomas’s claim and address procedural default considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Watson announce a retroactive new substantive right under §2255(f)(3)? | Thomas argues Watson created a new substantive right applicable retroactively. | Government contends Watson did not create a retroactive new rule for §2255(f)(3) purposes. | Watson announces a retroactive new substantive right. |
| May a court other than the Supreme Court decide retroactivity for §2255(f)(3)? | Thomas maintains retroactivity can be determined by this court. | Government contends only the Supreme Court may decide retroactivity. | A court other than the Supreme Court may decide retroactivity for §2255(f)(3). |
| Should the district court's dismissal be sustained on procedural default grounds or remanded for development? | Thomas's Watson claim should be considered on the merits in light of retroactivity. | Thomas cannot show cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse default; the case should be dismissed. | Remand to district court for further proceedings consistent with retroactivity and default analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007) (new rule; retroactivity for §2255(f)(3))
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (watershed rules; retroactivity limited under collateral review)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (1990) (substantive rules retroactive; decriminalization concept)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (interpretation of 'uses' a firearm under §924(c)(1)(A))
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (interpreted 'use' of firearm; active employment not required)
- United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (retroactivity determinations for §2255(f)(3) may be made by courts other than the Supreme Court)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (retroactivity determination for §2255(f)(3) questions raised; Supreme Court decision)