United States v. Wright
17-7057
| 10th Cir. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Wright pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced as a career offender to 153 months; he did not appeal.
- In June 2016 Wright filed a § 2255 motion challenging his career‑offender designation based on Johnson and Mathis; the district court denied relief.
- Wright filed a motion for reconsideration in February 2017 and a second § 2255 in June 2017; both were treated as unauthorized successive § 2255 petitions and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- In August 2017 Wright filed a "Motion to Correct a Plain Error," seeking vacatur of the career‑offender enhancement and reduction of his sentence to 84 months; the district court again treated it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 and dismissed.
- Wright requested a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that dismissal; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA, concluding reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright’s "Motion to Correct a Plain Error" is a successive § 2255 | Wright contends the motion seeks correction of plain sentencing error (invoking Mathis) and is not a successive § 2255 | The government/district court treat the motion as a collateral attack on sentence equivalent to a § 2255 and thus successive | The court held the motion was a successive § 2255 because it sought release/resentencing relief and was Wright’s third collateral attack |
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion without prior circuit authorization | Wright argues district court can fix sentencing error without § 2244 authorization | The court asserts jurisdiction is lacking for second or successive § 2255 claims absent court of appeals authorization | The court held it lacked jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was correct |
| Whether Wright’s claims implicate Johnson or Mathis to allow successive relief | Wright relies on Mathis (and referenced Johnson) to challenge the career‑offender enhancement | The court found Johnson inapplicable (not ACCA residual clause) and Mathis not retroactive as announced | The court held Wright could not show entitlement to relief based on Johnson/Mathis on collateral review |
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate the procedural ruling (COA standard) | Wright sought COA arguing the dismissal was improper | The court applied Slack and concluded the procedural ruling was not debatable | The court denied a COA; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.) (COA requirement noted)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for certificate of appealability)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.) (district court lacks jurisdiction over unauthorized successive § 2255)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir.) (substance of a filing, not its label, determines whether it is a § 2255 motion)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual‑clause vagueness decision)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statutory‑elements categorical approach)
- United States v. Taylor, [citation="672 F. App'x 860"] (10th Cir.) (Mathis not retroactive on collateral review)