United States v. Troy Powell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17485
4th Cir.2012Background
- Powell was convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kg cocaine and 50 g crack, facing a 10-year minimum and life maximum.
- Powell's sentence was enhanced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on a prior North Carolina drug conviction (a “felony drug offense”).
- The district court treated Powell’s NC conviction as a qualifying felony with potential exposure over one year, but record evidence was insufficient to show maximum possible punishment.
- Powell filed a § 2255 motion within a year after Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (2010), arguing Carachuri and Simmons invalidated the use of his NC conviction to enhance under § 841(b).
- The district court dismissed Powell’s motion as untimely, holding Carachuri retroactivity had not been established; the appeal followed.
- The panel held Carachuri is a procedural rule not retroactive; Powell’s § 2255(f)(3) claim failed and the district court’s dismissal was affirmed.
- Concurrence in part (King) dissented, arguing Carachuri is a substantive rule with retroactive effect and that Powell could obtain relief under § 2255(f)(3) in appropriate circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity under §2255(f)(3) for Carachuri? | Powell relies on Carachuri as a new substantive right retroactive on collateral review. | Carachuri is procedural; no retroactive application. | Carachuri is procedural in the panel majority’s view, not retroactive. |
| Substantive vs procedural Carachuri rule | Carachuri narrowed punishable conduct, constituting a substantive rule. | Carachuri altered only the process for determining recidivist findings. | Panel majority treats Carachuri as procedural; dissent would label it substantive. |
| Effect on §841(b) enhancements pre-Carachuri | Carachuri retroactivity could invalidate pre-Carachuri enhancements that exceeded the unenhanced maximum. | Pre-Carachuri enhancements could stand if within unenhanced maximum. | Because Powell’s sentence remained within the unenhanced maximum, relief under §2255f(3) not available. |
| Retroactivity scope for 21 U.S.C. §841(b) and related schemes | Carachuri should apply to other max-enhancing schemes (e.g., Harp legacy). | Carachuri’s applicability limited to its own context. | Carachuri recognizes retroactivity in certain post-Harp contexts per Simmons; see dissent for broader view. |
| Impact of Carachuri on other offenders (career offender, etc.) | Carachuri narrows prior offenses for various penalties, enabling relief. | Relief limited by statutory maximums and §2255 standards. | Carachuri effects may extend beyond this case, but Powell is not eligible for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (U.S. 2010) (holds to look at actual conviction, not potential maximums, for aggravated felony inquiry; procedural rule under Teague framework)
- Simmons v. United States (en banc), 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (applies Carachuri to invalidate North Carolina recidivist enhancements under CSA/§841; record-of-conviction requirement emphasized)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes substantive vs procedural rules for retroactivity)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (establishes retroactivity framework for new rules on collateral review)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1990) (watershed procedural rule concept for retroactivity)