United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985

Background

Richard Trent was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm; at sentencing the court applied the ACCA enhancement based on three prior convictions, producing a 196‑month sentence.
Trent admitted two prior ACCA-qualifying drug convictions; the government relied on a 2007 Oklahoma general conspiracy conviction (conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine) as the third predicate.
On direct appeal this court (Trent I) held Oklahoma’s general conspiracy statute divisible and, using the modified categorical approach, concluded Trent’s conspiracy conviction qualified as an ACCA serious drug offense; the panel gave two rationales for divisibility.
While Trent’s § 2255 motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided Mathis v. United States, which rejected one of Trent I’s rationales (broad means-versus-elements approach) and clarified the elements/means inquiry for divisibility.
The district court denied Trent’s § 2255 motion, finding (inter alia) the Mathis-based claim untimely and that Trent I remained law of the case; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Mathis did not constitute an intervening change in law as to Trent I’s alternative (second) rationale.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trent’s Mathis-based challenge to using his Oklahoma conspiracy conviction as an ACCA predicate was timely under § 2255	Trent argued the amended/supplemental filing invoking Mathis related back to his original § 2255 motion	Government argued the Mathis claim was raised after the one-year limitations period and/or was procedurally barred as previously decided on direct appeal	The court held the Mathis claim related back to the original motion and was timely
Whether Mathis created an intervening change in law that overcomes the law‑of‑the‑case effect of Trent I’s divisibility holding	Trent argued Mathis changed the controlling law because it tightened the certainty standard for deciding elements vs means, undermining Trent I’s divisibility conclusion	Government argued Mathis did not affect Trent I’s alternative rationale, which had independently found divisibility based on Oklahoma law and jury unanimity	The court held Mathis did not create an intervening change as to Trent I’s second rationale; Trent I remains law of the case, so § 2255 relief is barred
Whether Oklahoma’s conspiracy statute is divisible for modified categorical approach purposes	Trent contended the statute was indivisible (alternative means), so his conviction should not categorically qualify as a drug offense	Government maintained the object of the conspiracy is a traditional element under Oklahoma law, making the statute divisible and permitting record review to show Trent’s object was methamphetamine manufacture	The court (following Trent I’s second rationale) held the statute is divisible because Oklahoma law/jury instructions require unanimity on the object, permitting the modified categorical approach
Whether the district court’s merits analysis under Mathis needed independent review	Trent urged reconsideration of the merits in light of Mathis	Government relied on law of the case to foreclose merits reconsideration	The court declined to reach the merits because law of the case controlled and affirmed denial of § 2255 relief

Key Cases Cited

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifying elements-vs‑means inquiry for divisible statutes and limits on using the modified categorical approach)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explaining when a statute is divisible and permitting the modified categorical approach for alternative elements)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulating the categorical approach and the ‘‘certainty’’ requirement for identifying predicate offenses)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (describing Taylor’s demand for certainty and restricting what record materials may be consulted)
Trent v. United States, 767 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 2014) (Trent I) (affirming ACCA enhancement and providing two rationales for divisibility of Oklahoma’s conspiracy statute)
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (discussing categorical approach limitations when comparing state crimes to generic offenses)