United States v. Thomas Reyes
755 F.3d 210
3rd Cir.2014Background
- In July 2006 Reyes was convicted by a jury of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951), using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §924(c)), and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)).
- Reyes was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, five years supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and a $300 special assessment.
- His direct appeal challenging only the Hobbs Act conviction was rejected by this Court and certiorari was denied.
- Reyes filed a pro se §2255 habeas petition in October 2011; counsel was appointed and an evidentiary hearing held.
- Reyes sought to amend his §2255 petition to raise claims under Alleyne v. United States; the District Court denied relief and refused to permit the Alleyne amendment, but granted a certificate of appealability on Alleyne’s retroactivity.
- This Court, relying on its decision in United States v. Winkelman, held Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review and affirmed denial of Reyes’ §2255 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne announced a new rule | Reyes: Alleyne should apply retroactively to his collateral §2255 challenge | Government: Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review under Teague | Alleyne is a new rule but is not retroactive to cases on collateral review; Reyes gets no relief |
| Whether Alleyne is substantive (bar to punishment) or procedural | Reyes: argues Teague/retroactivity framework may not apply; urges broader retroactivity | Government: Alleyne is procedural (an extension of Apprendi) and not a watershed rule | Court: Alleyne is procedural, not substantive, and not a watershed rule, so Teague governs and precludes retroactive application |
| Whether Teague applies to federal §2255 collateral review | Reyes: contends Linkletter, not Teague, should control for federal habeas | Government: Teague applies to §2255 petitions; Linkletter was superseded by Teague | Court: Teague governs §2255 petitions; Linkletter was replaced by Teague |
| Whether Supreme Court or lower courts may declare Alleyne retroactive | Reyes: asks this Court to apply Alleyne retroactively | Government: only the Supreme Court can make Alleyne retroactive; lower courts bound by Teague | Court: Retroactivity decision rests with Supreme Court; lower courts may not declare Alleyne retroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed punishment are elements)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new rules apply on direct review; very limited retroactivity on collateral review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2014) (this Court held Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- In re Payne, 733 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2013) (concluded Alleyne announced a new rule and is not retroactive)
- Simpson v. United States, 721 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2013) (held Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Redd, 735 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (concluded Alleyne is an extension of Apprendi and not retroactive)
- United States v. Lloyd, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005) (recognized Teague applies to §2255 petitions)
- United States v. Jenkins, 333 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2003) (same)