Wilson v. Roy
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11967
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wilson was convicted in 1993 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, three counts of using a telephone to facilitate drug trafficking, and one count of money laundering, with a total 444 months' imprisonment.
- His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, and his 2255 motion was denied, with this court denying a COA in 2000.
- In July 2008, Wilson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing Santos invalidated his money laundering conviction because no profits transaction was shown.
- The magistrate judge ruled the § 2241 petition was not cognizable under the savings clause unless actual innocence was shown, which Wilson failed to do.
- During the appeal, Garland v. Roy was decided, prompting supplemental briefing on whether the transaction underlying the money laundering charge required profits under Santos.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| retroactivity of Santos under savings clause | Wilson asserts Santos is retroactive and supports actual innocence. | Wilson cannot show actual innocence; Santos does not undermine drug-derived proceeds. | Santos retroactive; not showing actual innocence defeats petition |
| whether proceeds means profits or receipts in drug cases | Proceeds should mean receipts, making the money laundering nonexistent offense. | Under Santos-Stevens concurrence, proceeds in drug cases mean receipts; profits interpretation foreclosed for drugs. | In drug cases, proceeds = receipts; no nonexistent-offense finding |
| merger problem and need to rely on Stevens concurrence controlling rule | Garland requires considering merger issues to determine proceeds | Garland relies on Stevens concurrence as controlling for drugs; no merger obstacle here | Garland’s merger analysis unnecessary; Stevens concurrence controls for drug cases |
| whether Reyes-Requena/§2255 savings clause requires foreclosed claim analysis | Savings clause satisfied if retroactivity and nonexistence of offense shown | Claim not foreclosed by circuit law and proceeds interpretation controls | Do not reach foreclosed-law analysis; Santos controls |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (proceeds interpretation in money laundering depends on case context)
- Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010) (retroactivity of Santos; Stevens concurrence controls in drug cases)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2001) (savings clause requires actual innocence and retroactivity showing)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (U.S. 2008) (savings clause not raised on appeal here)
- Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (habeas review standard; COA not required for §2241 appeals)
- Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000) (remedies under §2255 not inadequate merely due to prior motions)
- United States v. Quinones, 635 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 2011) (Stevens concurrence controlling on proceeds in drug cases)