United States v. Wooten
4:08-cr-00037
W.D. Va.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Ronald Edward Wooten pleaded guilty (2008 indictment) to one count of distributing a measurable quantity of a substance containing cocaine; other count dismissed per plea agreement.
- Presentence Report classified Wooten as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on multiple prior drug convictions (North Carolina 1998; Virginia 2003 convictions) and recommended a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
- District court sentenced Wooten to 151 months imprisonment on July 23, 2010; Wooten did not appeal.
- In a pro se 28 U.S.C. §2255 petition, Wooten argued (post-Johnson) that he should not have been a career offender because predicate convictions no longer qualify.
- The government moved to dismiss; court found Wooten’s challenge untimely and concluded Johnson did not invalidate controlled-substance predicates or the advisory Guidelines.
- Court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance/coercion and a nunc pro tunc reclassification, noting Wooten’s plea contained a collateral-review waiver and was knowing and voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson v. United States invalidates Wooten’s career-offender designation | Johnson undermines predicate offenses used for career-offender status | Johnson addressed violent-felony definitions, not controlled-substance predicates; Beckles preserves Guidelines | Denied — Johnson does not affect controlled-substance predicates; Beckles forecloses §2255 relief attacking advisory Guidelines |
| Whether Wooten’s prior NC conviction fails Simmons felony requirement | After Simmons, NC conviction may not be a felony punishable by >1 year | Wooten’s NC sentence was 35–42 months, exceeding one year | Denied — NC sentence exceeds one year; Simmons inapplicable here |
| Whether a career-offender designation vacated by later precedent can be challenged on collateral review | Reclassification would warrant §2255 relief | Career-offender designation affects Guidelines but not lawfulness of sentence if within statutory maximum | Denied — Foote bars collateral relief when sentence remains lawful |
| Whether ineffective assistance / coercion or nunc pro tunc relief saves the claims despite plea waiver | Counsel coerced plea and failed to advise; nunc pro tunc can correct classification | Plea agreement included knowing, voluntary waiver; nunc pro tunc cannot alter earlier substantive decisions | Denied — Waiver valid; claims fail on merits; nunc pro tunc inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (limited scope to violent-felony definition in ACCA)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines are advisory; Johnson-type vagueness challenge inapplicable to Guidelines)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2011) (felony predicate requires potential sentence > one year)
- United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015) (career-offender reclassification post-Simmons not cognizable on collateral review when sentence lawful)
- Lemaster v. United States, 403 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (validity of collateral-review waivers in plea agreements)
- Glover v. Wilmington Healthcare, 699 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2012) (nunc pro tunc relief cannot be used to change prior substantive decisions)