568 F.Supp.3d 1115
W.D. Wash.2021Background
- Steven M. Williams pleaded guilty in 2014 to production of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); he received a 240‑month federal sentence to run concurrently with a long state sentence.
- The felon‑in‑possession charge rested on two Washington convictions (1994 residential burglary; 1997 possession of stolen property). Although those convictions had statutory maximums over one year, the applicable Washington mandatory guideline ranges exposed Williams only to short terms (3–9 months and 0–90 days).
- Williams waived collateral attacks in his plea agreement except for claims relating to counsel effectiveness. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
- In 2020 Williams filed a § 2255 petition asserting actual innocence of § 922(g) liability based on intervening legal developments (Rehaif and Valencia‑Mendoza/Simmons‑style precedent).
- The government conceded timeliness for the Rehaif claim and did not press procedural‑default or collateral‑waiver bars in light of the asserted actual innocence.
- The district court concluded Williams was actually innocent as a matter of law of the § 922(g) offense and granted the § 2255 motion, vacating the felon‑in‑possession conviction and ordering resentencing on the remaining child‑pornography count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rehaif claim | Filed within one year of Rehaif; therefore timely under §2255(f)(3) | Agrees Rehaif claim is timely | Court: Rehaif‑based claim is timely |
| Timeliness of Valencia‑Mendoza/Simmons claim | Even if untimely, actual innocence overcomes AEDPA time bar (McQuiggin) | Concedes actual innocence can overcome timeliness | Court: Timeliness satisfied via actual innocence doctrine |
| Procedural default (failure to appeal) | Actual innocence overcomes default (Bousley) | Concedes default is overcome by actual innocence | Court: Procedural default excused by actual innocence |
| Enforceability of collateral‑attack waiver | Waiver should not bar relief because vacating the §922(g) conviction corrects a legal innocence (miscarriage of justice exception) | Argued waiver bars §2255 challenge per plea agreement | Court: Waiver not enforced here; miscarriage of justice exception applies; §2255 relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (§922(g) requires proof defendant knew his prohibited status)
- United States v. Valencia‑Mendoza, 912 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2019) (for §922(g) a state conviction qualifies as >1 year exposure if top of mandatory guidelines or actual sentence exceeds one year)
- United States v. McAdory, 935 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2019) (applies Valencia‑Mendoza principles to predicate‑felony analysis)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence can overcome AEDPA time bar)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence can excuse procedural default)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (standard and rarity of freestanding actual‑innocence claims)
- Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard that petitioner must affirmatively prove probable innocence)
- United States v. De Bright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984) (rejecting concurrent‑sentence doctrine to avoid review of convictions)
- United States v. Torres, 828 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (appeal/waiver unenforceable if sentence or conviction is illegal)
- United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2016) (vacating §922(g) conviction where predicate did not qualify under Simmons rules; persuasive on waiver/miscarriage‑of‑justice point)