butterworth v. united states, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Butterworth v. United States, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1076

RYAN BUTTERWORTH,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. D. Br ock Hor nby, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

J ane El i zabet h Lee f or appel l ant .Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Thomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J anuar y 5, 2015


2/22

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Ryan But t erwort h was convi ct ed

by a j ur y i n 2007 on f eder al cr i mi nal char ges ar i si ng f r om hi s

i nvol vement i n a cr ack- cocai ne di st r i but i on oper at i on. He

i ni t i at ed a col l at er al at t ack on hi s sent ence af t er t he Supr eme

Cour t , i n Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2155 ( 2013) ,

hel d that any f act l eadi ng t o t he i mposi t i on of a mandat ory mi ni mum

sentence must be f ound by a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed But t er wor t h' s mot i on f or habeas r el i ef under

28 U. S. C. 2255. But t er wor t h' s appeal pr esent s us wi t h an i ssue

of f i r st i mpr essi on f or t hi s ci r cui t : whet her t he r ul e announced i n

Al l eyne appl i es ret r oact i vel y t o sent ences chal l enged on an i ni t i al

pet i t i on f or col l at er al r evi ew. We concl ude t hat Al l eyne does not

so appl y. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

But t er wor t h' s habeas pet i t i on.

I. Background

Act i ng on an i nf or mant ' s t i p t hat But t er wor t h and hi s

r oommat e wer e engaged i n a dr ug t r af f i cki ng oper at i on out of t hei r

shared apar t ment i n West br ook, Mai ne, agent s sear ched t r ash bags

out si de of t he bui l di ng. The sear ch uncover ed evi dence of dr ugs,

and t he agent s obt ai ned a war r ant t o sear ch t he apar t ment . I nsi de

t hey sei zed bags of mar i j uana, a scal e, and ( most r el evant f or t hi s

appeal ) , 5. 04 gr ams of cocai ne f r om t he i nsi de of a soda can.

But t er wor t h was t r i ed and convi ct ed of t wo dr ug t r af f i cki ng count s:

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e and t o possess f i ve gr ams or mor e of

-2-


3/22

cocai ne base ( count 1) , and ai di ng and abet t i ng t he possessi on of

f i ve gr ams or mor e of cocai ne base wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e ( count

2) . 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B) , 846, and 18 U. S. C. 2.

For pur poses of set t i ng t he appl i cabl e mandatory mi ni mum

sent ence under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) ( 2006) , t he pr osecut or

asked t he j udge at t he sent enci ng hear i ng t o f i nd But t er wor t h

r esponsi bl e f or f i f t y gr ams or mor e of cocai ne base, not j ust t he

5. 04 gr ams t hat t he agent s sei zed. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t hat

r equest , basi ng i t s deci si on on wi t ness t est i mony that But t er wor t h

br agged he was ear ni ng $1, 200 per ni ght ( equi val ent t o about

f our t een gr ams at t he goi ng r at e) , and t hat he had been sel l i ng

cr ack cocai ne f or at l east t wo weeks bef or e hi s ar r est . Thi s dr ug

quant i t y f i ndi ng i ncr eased t he mandat or y mi ni mumsent ence f r omt en

t o t went y years f or each count . 1 The t r i al j udge sent enced

But t er wor t h t o that t went y year mi ni mum on each count , t o run

concur r ent l y. 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) .

But t er wor t h t i mel y appeal ed hi s convi ct i on and sent ence

t o t he Fi r st Ci r cui t . Ant i ci pat i ng t he posi t i on event ual l y adopt ed

by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Al l eyne, he ar gued that a j ur y must f i nd

beyond a reasonabl e doubt any f act l eadi ng t o the i mposi t i on of a

hi gher mandatory mi ni mum sent ence. Uni t ed St ates v. But t erwort h,

511 F. 3d 71, 76- 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . We r ej ect ed t hi s ar gument , as

1 But t er wor t h' s sent ence was al so t he pr oduct of hi s pr i orf el ony convi ct i on, t he ef f ect of whi ch he di d not cont est and i snot at i ssue i n t hi s appeal .

-3-


4/22

we were requi r ed t o do by t he Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ng i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Har r i s, 536 U. S. 545, 566- 67 ( 2002) . Har r i s addr essed

t he Cour t ' s ear l i er hol di ng i n Appr endi v. New J er sey, 530 U. S.

469, 490 ( 2000) , whi ch had decl ar ed t hat any f act , ot her t han t he

f act of a pr i or convi ct i on, t hat i ncreases t he penal t y f or a cr i me

beyond t he st atut or i l y pr escr i bed maxi mumsent ence must be f ound by

a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Har r i s expr essl y decl i ned t o

extend Appr endi ' s l ogi c t o mandat or y mi ni mum sent ences, t hus

al l owi ng j udges t o cont i nue f i ndi ng f act s t hat r ai se mandat or y

mi ni mumpenal t i es. Har r i s, 536 U. S. at 557, 568. I n shor t , at t he

t i me of But t er wor t h' s di r ect appeal ( and hi s di l i gent but

unsuccessf ul pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i ) , t he cont r ol l i ng case l aw

di ct at ed t hat "so l ong as t he appl i cabl e st at ut or y mi ni mum ( based

on t he j udi ci al l y f ound f act s) [ f el l ] bel ow t he def aul t st at ut or y

maxi mum ( based on the j ur y f i ndi ngs) , t he Si xt h Amendment [ was]

sat i sf i ed. " But t er wor t h, 511 F. 3d at 77 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 89- 90 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed 549 U. S. 1007

( 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Goodi ne, 326 F. 3d 26, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ,

cer t . deni ed, 541 U. S. 902 ( 2004) ) . Si nce t he maxi mum penal t y f or

f i ve gr ams of cocai ne base was f or t y year s, 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( B) ( 2006) , i mposi t i on of a t went y- year mi ni mumsent ence

based on j udi ci al l y f ound f act s di d not vi ol at e But t er wor t h' s Si xt h

-4-


5/22

Amendment r i ght s accordi ng to t he l aw at t he t i me he was sent enced.

I d. at 77. 2

Si x year s l at er , i n 2013, t he Supr eme Cour t over r ul ed

Har r i s, expl ai ni ng t hat t he "di st i nct i on bet ween f act s t hat

i ncr ease the st at ut or y maxi mum and f act s t hat i ncr ease onl y the

mandatory mi ni mum" was " i nconsi st ent wi t h our deci si on i n Appr endi

v. New J er sey, and wi t h t he or i gi nal meani ng of t he Si xth

Amendment . " Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2155 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Ther ef or e, " [ a] ny f act t hat , by l aw, i ncr eases t he penal t y f or a

cr i me i s an ' el ement ' t hat must be submi t t ed t o the j ur y and f ound

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d.

Seeki ng t he benef i t of t he Cour t ' s new i nt er pr et at i on of

t he Si xt h Amendment , But t erwor t h pr ompt l y moved t o vacat e hi s

sent ence under 28 U. S. C. 2255. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed

But t er wor t h' s mot i on f or habeas r el i ef , but i ssued a cer t i f i cat e of

appeal abi l i t y ( "COA") t o deci de whet her Al l eyne i s r et r oact i vel y

appl i cabl e. We al l owed But t er wor t h' s appeal t o go f or war d on t hat

i ssue. See Gr ant - Chase v. Comm' r , 145 F. 3d 431, 435 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ( r ul i ng t hat "a COA f r om a di st r i ct j udge as t o an i ssue i s

2 But t er wor t h al so appeal ed hi s sent ence i n 2010 af t erCongr ess amended t he Fai r Sent enci ng Act t o i ncr ease t he quant i t y

of cocai ne base t hat t r i ggered t he t went y year mandatory mi ni mumf r om f i f t y t o 280 gr ams. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed But t er wor t h' smot i on t o vacat e, and we af f i r med, ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.Goncal ves, 642 F. 3d 245 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat t he Fai rSent enci ng Act does not appl y r et r oact i vel y t o def endant s who wer esent enced bef ore t he Act ' s enactment date of August 3, 2010) .Uni t ed St at es v. But t er wor t h, No. 10- 2339 ( 1st Ci r . Sep. 6, 2011) .

-5-


6/22

i t sel f suf f i ci ent t o per mi t an appeal of t he i ssue i n 28 U. S. C.

2254 and 2255 pr oceedi ngs" ) .

II. Analysis

I t i s common gr ound that But t erwort h' s sent ence was

det er mi ned under pr ocedur es t hat woul d f ai l t o suf f i ce under

Al l eyne. Today, t he j ur y, not t he j udge, woul d have t o det er mi ne

dr ug quant i t y i f t hat quant i t y wer e t o i ncr ease t he mandat or y

mi ni mum sentence. And i t woul d need t o do so under a "beyond a

r easonabl e doubt " bur den of pr oof .

Al l eyne, t hough, was not t he l aw when But t erwor t h was

convi ct ed and sent enced. Li ke t housands of ot her s, he was t r i ed i n

f ul l accor d wi t h t he l aw as i t st ood pr i or t o Al l eyne. Gener al l y,

new r ul es of l aw do not appl y t o cases concl uded bef ore t he new l aw

i s recogni zed. Tyl er v. Cai n, 533 U. S. 656, 665 ( 2001) ( ci t i ng

Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 ( 1989) ) . Ot her wi se, every change

coul d unset t l e hundr eds or t housands of cl osed cases, and cour t s

mi ght even hesi t at e t o adopt new r ul es f or f ear of unset t l i ng t oo

many f i nal convi ct i ons and set t l ed expect at i ons. See J enki ns v.

Del awar e, 395 U. S. 213, 218 ( 1969) ( st at i ng t hat t he

"i ncongr ui t i es" r esul t i ng f r om"t he pr obl emi nher ent i n pr ospect i ve

deci si on- maki ng . . . must be bal anced agai nst t he i mpet us t he

t echni que pr ovi des f or t he i mpl ement at i on of l ong- over due r ef or ms,

whi ch ot her wi se coul d not be pr act i cal l y ef f ect ed") ; J ohn C.

J ef f r i es, J r . , The Ri ght - Remedy Gap i n Const i t ut i onal Law, 109 Yal e

-6-


7/22

L. J . 87, 98- 99 ( 1999) ( quest i oni ng whet her War r en Cour t - er a

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons such as Mi r anda woul d have been er ect ed

i f "ever y conf essed cr i mi nal t hen i n cust ody had t o be set f r ee") .

Congr ess has di r ect ed i t s at t ent i on t o deci di ng whet her

a new r ul e of l aw appl i es t o r equest s t hat pr i or convi ct i ons be

r eopened. I t enact ed 28 U. S. C. 2255( f ) , whi ch gover ns t he

l i mi t at i ons per i od f or post - convi ct i on f eder al r el i ef under t he

Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( "AEDPA") .

Sect i on 2255( f ) pr ovi des:

A 1- year per i od of l i mi t at i on shal l appl y t o a mot i onunder t hi s sect i on. The l i mi t at i on per i od shal l r un f r omt he l at est of - -

( 1) t he date on whi ch t he j udgment of convi ct i on becomesf i nal ;

( 2) t he dat e on whi ch t he i mpedi ment t o maki ng a mot i oncr eat ed by gover nment al act i on i n vi ol at i on of t heConst i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es i s r emoved, i ft he movant was pr evented f r om maki ng a mot i on by suchgovernment al act i on;

( 3) t he dat e on whi ch t he r i ght asser t ed was i ni t i al l yr ecogni zed by the Supr eme Cour t , i f t hat r i ght has beennewl y r ecogni zed by t he Supr eme Cour t and mader et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e t o cases on col l at er al r evi ew;or

( 4) t he dat e on whi ch t he f act s suppor t i ng t he cl ai m orcl ai ms pr esent ed coul d have been di scover ed t hr ough theexer ci se of due di l i gence.

But t er wor t h' s ar gument s t o t hi s Cour t r est upon ( f ) ( 1) and ( f ) ( 3) ,

but si nce hi s ( f ) ( 1) ar gument i s out si de t he scope of t he

cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y and ar guabl y not pr eser ved, we deal

wi th ( f ) ( 3) f i r s t .

-7-


8/22

A. Does Alleyne create a newly recognized right that

retroactively applies on initial petitions for

collateral review?

Bef or e det er mi ni ng whet her Al l eyne qual i f i es as a "newl y

r ecogni zed" r i ght t hat i s "r et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e t o cases on

col l at er al r evi ew, " we must addr ess t he t hr eshol d quest i on of

whet her sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) per mi t s cour t s of appeal s t o make a

r et r oacti vi t y det er mi nat i on on an i ni t i al pet i t i on f or col l at er al

r evi ew. We agr ee wi t h t he r easoned anal ysi s on t hi s i ssue

under t aken by t he Sevent h Ci r cui t i n Ashl ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 266

F. 3d 671, 673 ( 7t h Ci r . 2001) , whi ch r eached i t s concl usi on by

cont r ast i ng sect i on 2255( f ) , gover ni ng i ni t i al pet i t i ons f or

col l at er al r evi ew, wi t h sect i on 2255( h) , t he cor r espondi ng

pr ovi si on f or second or successi ve pet i t i ons. I n or der t o obt ai n

aut hor i zat i on t o f i l e second or successi ve sect i on 2255( h) ( 2)

mot i ons, a pet i t i oner must show t hat , i n r el evant par t , hi s mot i on

r el i es upon "a new r ul e of const i t ut i onal l aw, made r et r oact i ve t o

cases on col l ater al r evi ew by t he Supr eme Cour t , t hat was

pr evi ousl y made unavai l abl e. " 28 U. S. C. 2255( h) ( 2) ( emphasi s

added) . 3 Sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) omi t s t he "by t he Supr eme Cour t "

qual i f i er t hat appear s i mmedi at el y af t er "made r et r oact i ve t o cases

3 The ot her way t o f i l e a successi ve pet i t i on i s si mi l ar t o( f ) ( 4) . Subsect i on ( h) ( 1) per mi t s a mot i on t o be cer t i f i ed by acour t of appeal s when t her e i s " newl y di scover ed evi dence t hat , i fpr oven and vi ewed i n l i ght of t he evi dence as a whol e, woul d besuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hat nor easonabl e f act f i nder woul d have f ound t he movant gui l t y of t heof f ense. "

-8-


9/22

on col l at er al r evi ew, " and so t o "t r eat t he [ ( h) ( 2) ] f or mul at i on as

i dent i cal t o [ ( f ) ( 3) ] i s not f ai t hf ul t o t he di f f erence i n t he

l anguage. " Ashl ey, 266 F. 3d at 673. Ther ef or e, we j oi n our si st er

ci r cui t s i n concl udi ng t hat "[ d] i st r i ct and appel l at e cour t s, no

l ess t han t he Supr eme Cour t , may i ssue opi ni ons" on i ni t i al

pet i t i ons f or col l at er al r evi ew hol di ng i n t he f i r st i nst ance t hat

a new r ul e i s r et r oact i ve i n t he absence of a speci f i c f i ndi ng t o

t hat ef f ect by t he Supr eme Cour t . I d. ; see al so Gar ci a v. Uni t ed

St at es, 278 F. 3d 1210, 1213 & n. 4 ( 11t h Ci r . 2010) ( deci di ng t hat

( f ) ( 3) does not r equi r e t he r et r oact i vi t y det er mi nat i on t o be made

by t he Supr eme Cour t bef or e a di st r i ct or appel l at e cour t can make

such a f i ndi ng, and not i ng t hat t he same di st i nct i on i n st at ut or y

l anguage exi st s i n t he compar abl e pr ovi si ons f or st at e pr i soner s i n

28 U. S. C. 2244( d) ( 1) ) ; Wi egand v. Uni t ed St at es, 380 F. 3d 890,

892 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) ( any f eder al cour t can make a r et r oact i vi t y

deci si on under ( f ) ( 3) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Swi nt on, 333 F. 3d 481, 486

( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lopez, 248 F. 3d 427, 431

( 5t h Ci r . 2001) ( same) ; Mar quez v. Uni t ed St at es, 91 F. App' x 162,

162 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( unpubl i shed) ( ci t i ng, i nt er al i a, Ashl ey, and

r ej ect i ng pet i t i oner ' s suggest i on t hat onl y t he Supr eme Cour t may

deci de t he r et r oact i vi t y quest i on) ; but see Dodd v. Uni t ed St at es,

545 U. S. 353, 365 n. 4 ( 2005) ( St evens, J . , di ssent i ng) ( di sagr eei ng

wi t h t he maj or i t y' s assumpt i on t hat l ower cour t s may make t he

r et r oact i vi t y det er mi nat i on f or pur poses of what i s now codi f i ed as

-9-


10/22

sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) , and ar gui ng t hat t he pr i or pr eposi t i onal phr ase

"by t he Supr eme Cour t " cont ai ned i n sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) modi f i es t he

phr ase "made ret r oact i vel y appl i cabl e t o cases on col l at er al

r evi ew") .

We can t her ef or e pr oceed t o t he mer i t s of But t er wor t h' s

sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) ar gument . Si nce But t er wor t h f i l ed hi s mot i on

wel l wi t hi n one year of Al l eyne, hi s mot i on i s t i mel y i f Al l eyne

t r i gger ed a new one- year l i mi t at i ons per i od f or cases on col l at er al

r evi ew. I n or der t o show t hi s, But t er wor t h needs t o est abl i sh t hat

Al l eyne: ( 1) r ecogni zed a new r i ght t hat i s ( 2) "r et r oact i vel y

appl i cabl e" on col l at er al r evi ew.

But t er wor t h easi l y convi nces us t hat Al l eyne i s a "newl y

r ecogni zed" r i ght , and t he gover nment pr oper l y concedes t he poi nt .

The Supreme Cour t has expl ai ned t hat "a case announces a new r ul e

i f t he r esul t was not di ct at ed by pr ecedent exi st i ng at t he t i me

t he def endant ' s convi ct i on became f i nal , " and t hat "a hol di ng i s

not so di ct at ed . . . unl ess . . . i t woul d have been appar ent t o

al l r easonabl e j ur i st s. " Chai dez v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .

1103, 1107 ( 2013) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Har r i s governed But t erwor t h' s Si xt h Amendment argument at t he t i me

hi s convi ct i on became f i nal i n 2007, and i n or der t o r each i t s

concl usi on i n Al l eyne, t he Cour t had t o over r ul e Har r i s. Al l eyne,

t her ef or e, was not a "gar den var i et y appl i cat i on" of t he Si xt h

Amendment t o a new set of f act s, Chai dez, 133 S. Ct . at 1107, but

-10-


11/22

i nst ead a "new obl i gat i on" on t he government , Teague, 489 U. S. at

301, namel y t he r equi r ement t hat i t pr ove f act s l eadi ng t o a hi gher

mandatory mi ni mum penal t y t o a j ur y, beyond a reasonabl e doubt .

Our concl usi on t hat Al l eyne was a new r ul e br i ngs us i nt o accor d

wi t h t he ot her ci r cui t cour t s t o have deci ded t he i ssue. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Reyes, 755 F. 3d 210, 212 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) ; I n

r e Payne, 733 F. 3d 1027, 1029 ( 10t h Ci r . 2013) ; Si mpson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 721 F. 3d 875, 876 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) .

By f ar t he t al l er hur dl e f or But t er wor t h i s t he

r et r oacti vi t y quest i on, and t hi s i s wher e hi s cl ai m under

secti on 2255( f ) ( 3) f ai l s. Al t hough Al l eyne' s r et r oacti vi t y i s an

i ssue of f i r st i mpr essi on f or t hi s ci r cui t , 4 we di d al r eady deci de

t hat Appr endi i t sel f was not r et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e on col l at er al

4 Ot her ci r cui t cour t s have deci ded t hat Al l eyne i s not

r et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e t o second or successi ve pet i t i ons f orcol l at er al r evi ew, whi ch woul d r equi r e that t he new r ul e was mader et r oact i ve by t he Supr eme Cour t . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.Wi nkel man, 746 F. 3d 134, 136 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) ; Hughes v. Uni t edSt at es, 770 F. 3d 814, 818 ( 9t h Ci r . 2014) ; I n r e Mazzi o, 756 F. 3d487, 489- 93 ( 6t h Ci r . 2014) ; I n r e Payne, 733 F. 3d at 130; I n r eKemper , 735 F. 3d 211, 212 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) . The Tent h Ci r cui tr ecent l y deni ed a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y on t he basi s t hatt he pet i t i oner ' s ar gument t hat Al l eyne i s r et r oact i ve t o i ni t i alpet i t i ons "woul d be r ej ect ed by any r easonabl e j ur i st because i t i sgr ounded on a mi sconcept i on of 2255. " Uni t ed St ates v. Hoon, 762F. 3d 1172, 1173 & n. 1 ( 10t h Ci r . 2014) . I n J eant y v. War den, FCI -

Mi ami , 757 F. 3d 1283, 1285 ( 11t h Ci r . 2014) , t he El event h Ci r cui tst at ed t hat Al l eyne was not r et r oact i ve i n t he cont ext of a 28U. S. C. 2241 pet i t i on, whi ch r equi r es a pet i t i oner t o sat i sf y f i ver equi r ement s, i ncl udi ng r et r oact i vi t y. And t he Thi r d Ci r cui tdecl i ned t o make Al l eyne r et r oact i ve t o an i ni t i al pet i t i on i nUni t ed St at es v. Reyes, 755 F. 3d 210, 213 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) , but i ndoi ng so appear ed t o use t he st andar d f or successi ve pet i t i ons.

-11-


12/22

r evi ew i n Sepul veda v. Uni t ed St at es, 330 F. 3d 55, 63 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) . Our anal ysi s i n Sepul veda i nf or ms, and ar guabl y di ct at es,

our deci si on here, and we now r each t he same concl usi on about

r et r oact i vi t y f or Al l eyne as we di d f or Appr endi .

I n Sepul veda, we appl i ed t he Supr eme Cour t ' s anal ysi s i n

Teague, 489 U. S. at 288, t o det er mi ne t he non- r et r oact i vi t y of t he

Appr endi r ul e. Sepul veda, 330 F. 3d at 59- 63. We expl ai ned t hat

Teague gener al l y bar s r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on of new r ul es of

cr i mi nal l aw, but admi t s of t wo except i ons. Sepul veda, 330 F. 3d at

58. "The f i r st al l ows r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on of new r ul es t hat

ei t her ( a) pr ohi bi t cr i mi nal puni shment f or cer t ai n t ypes of

pr i mar y conduct , or ( b) f or bi d t he i mposi t i on of cer t ai n cat egor i es

of puni shment f or par t i cul ar cl asses of def endant s. " I d. Thi s

except i on i s j ust as "pat ent l y i napposi t e" t o t he r ul e of Al l eyne

as i t was t o Appr endi , because r equi r i ng j ur i es t o f i nd dr ug

quant i t i es l eadi ng t o hi gher mandatory mi ni mums beyond a reasonabl e

doubt "nei t her pl aces any par t i cul ar t ype of conduct beyond t he

r each of t he cr i mi nal l aw nor pr et er mi t s any par t i cul ar t ype of

puni shment f or a speci f i c cl ass of def endant s. " I d. But t er wor t h' s

chal l enge under sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) , t her ef or e, r el i es upon t he

second Teague except i on.

The second except i on i s f or "wat er shed r ul es of cr i mi nal

pr ocedur e i mpl i cat i ng t he f undament al f ai r ness and accur acy of t he

cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng. " I d. at 59 ( quot i ng Gr aham v. Col l i ns, 506

-12-


13/22

U. S. 461, 478 ( 1993) ) . I n or der f or a new r ul e t o f al l wi t hi n t hi s

second r equi r ement , an i nf r i ngement of t he rul e must : ( 1)

"ser i ousl y di mi ni sh t he l i kel i hood of obt ai ni ng an accur at e

convi ct i on, " Tyl er , 533 U. S. at 665, and ( 2) "al t er t he accept ed

under st andi ng of t he bedr ock pr ocedur al el ement s essent i al t o t he

i nt egr i t y and f ai r ness of a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng, " Sepul veda, 330

F. 3d at 60.

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent el uci dat es j ust how di f f i cul t i t

i s to f i t i nt o t he wat er shed except i on. I ndeed, t he Cour t has

not ed t hat si nce "we oper at e f r omt he pr emi se t hat such pr ocedur es

woul d be so cent r al t o an accur ate det er mi nat i on of i nnocence or

gui l t , we bel i eve i t unl i kel y t hat many such component s of basi c

due pr ocess have yet t o emerge. " Gr aham, 506 U. S. at 478 ( quot i ng

Teague, 489 U. S. at 313) . Admi t t i ng t hat t he "preci se cont our s of

t hi s except i on may be di f f i cul t t o di scer n, " t he Cour t has ci t ed

Gi deon v. Wai nwr i ght , 372 U. S. 335, 342, 345 (1963) - - whi ch

est abl i shed t he ri ght t o counsel f or st at e def endant s char ged wi t h

a f el ony- - as t he l one exampl e of " t he t ype of r ul e comi ng wi t hi n

t he except i on. " Saf f l e v. Par ks, 494 U. S. 484, 495 ( 1990) .

I n Sepul veda, we noted t hat Gi deon' s " pr onouncement - - t hat

r epr esent at i on by counsel i s f undament al t o a f ai r t r i al - - r eshaped

t he l egal l andscape and dr amat i cal l y r evi sed t he common

underst andi ng of what t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause demands i n a cr i mi nal

t r i al . " Sepul veda, 330 F. 3d at 61. The Appr endi r ul e r epr esent ed

-13-


14/22

no such sei smi c shi f t t o t he "bedr ock pr ocedur al el ement s" of our

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons f or cr i mi nal def endant s. Rai si ng t he

bur den of pr oof and r e- del egat i ng f act f i ndi ng f r omt he j udge t o t he

j ury, whi l e i mpl i cat i ng i mport ant const i t ut i onal prot ect i ons, 5 di d

not ser i ousl y di mi ni sh t he l i kel i hood of t he accur acy of convi ct i on

t o the ext ent r equi r ed by Teague, i n part because a def endant has

necessar i l y al r eady been convi ct ed at t he sent enci ng st age. I d. at

60. We st at ed t hat " f i ndi ngs by f eder al j udges, t hough now

r ender ed i nsuf f i ci ent i n cer t ai n i nst ances by Appr endi , nonet hel ess

ar e adequate t o make r el i abl e deci si ons about puni shment . " I d.

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Nor di d Appr endi

al t er our "concept of or der ed l i ber t y" at t he t i me i t was handed

down. I d. at 61 ( quot i ng O' Del l v. Net her l and, 521 U. S. 151, 157

( 1997) ) . "Af t er al l , even i n t he post - Appr endi er a, f i ndi ngs of

f act made by a sent enci ng j udge, under a pr eponder ance st andard,

r emai n an i mpor t ant par t of t he sent enci ng r egi men. " I d. at 60.

We f ound oursel ves i n good company when we r ej ect ed

Appr endi ' s r et r oact i vi t y, as we j oi ned ever y ci r cui t cour t t o have

r eached t he i ssue, i d. at 61 ( col l ect i ng cases) , and none have

concl uded ot her wi se si nce t hen. See, e. g. , Swi nt on, 333 F. 3d at

5 See I n r e Wi nshi p, 397 U. S. 358, 364, 368 ( 1970) ( st at i ngt hat " t he r easonabl e- doubt st andar d i s i ndi spensabl e, " and hol di ngt hat j uveni l es are ent i t l ed t o pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt whenchar ged wi t h a cr i me) ; Duncan v. Loui si ana, 391 U. S. 145, 149( 1968) ( st at i ng t hat "t r i al by j ur y i n cri mi nal cases i sf undament al t o t he Amer i can scheme of j ust i ce") .

-14-


15/22

491; Col eman v. Uni t ed St at es, 329 F. 3d 77, 90 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 305 F. 3d 304, 307- 10 ( 5t h Ci r . 2002) ( per

cur i am) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mor a, 293 F. 3d 1213, 1218- 19 ( 10t h Ci r .

2002) . The hef t of our pr ecedent and t hat of our s i st er ci r cui t s

bear i ng on Appr endi ' s l ack of r et r oact i vi t y wei ghs heavi l y upon

But t er wor t h' s chances t o pr evai l due t o t he cl ose anal yt i cal t i es

bet ween Appr endi and Al l eyne. The maj or i t y opi ni on i n Al l eyne

st at ed t hat t he Cour t coul d not "r econci l e[ ] [ Har r i s] wi t h [ i t s]

r easoni ng i n Appr endi " because "Appr endi ' s def i ni t i on of ' el ement s'

necessar i l y i ncl udes not onl y f act s t hat i ncrease t he cei l i ng, but

al so t hose t hat i ncrease t he f l oor . Bot h ki nds of f act s al t er t he

pr escr i bed r ange of sent ences t o whi ch a def endant i s exposed and

do so i n a manner t hat aggr avates t he puni shment . " 133 S. Ct . at

2158. The way i n whi ch Al l eyne oper at ed as a l ogi cal ext ensi on of

Appr endi f or ecl oses t he possi bi l i t y t hat we coul d have been cor r ect

i n Sepul veda, yet f i nd f or But t er wor t h her e. Unabl e t o di scer n any

di f f er ence bet ween st at utor y maxi mums and mandat or y mi ni mums t hat

i s mat er i al f or a r et r oact i vi t y det er mi nat i on ( and of f er ed none by

But t er wor t h) , we decl i ne t o depar t f r omour anal ysi s i n Sepul veda.

But t er wor t h al so cont ends t hat even i f our concl usi on i n

Sepul veda appear ed t o be cor r ect when i t was deci ded, we can now

see wi t h t he benef i t of hi ndsi ght t hat Appr endi was a much bi gger

deal t han anyone r eal i zed at t he t i me. I n essence, But t er wor t h

t akes t he posi t i on t hat our er r or i n Sepul veda was a l ack of

-15-


16/22

pr esci ence. He quot es our st at ement i n Uni t ed St at es v. Goodi ne,

326 F. 3d 26, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , t hat " [ n] ot hi ng i n Appr endi or

subsequent cases cal l s i nt o quest i on t he val i di t y of t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes, " per haps i n r ef er ence t o t he f act t hat t he Supr eme

Cour t , j ust t wo year s l at er , det er mi ned t hat t he f eder al sent enci ng

gui del i nes wer e subj ect t o t he Si xth Amendment j ur y t r i al

r equi r ement s, namel y Appr endi ' s r equi r ement t hat a j ur y must f i nd

f act s l eadi ng t o a hi gher maxi mum penal t y. Uni t ed St at es v.

Booker , 543 U. S. 220, 244- 45 ( 2005) .

Thi s t wi st on But t er wor t h' s ar gument i s unper suasi ve. We

are unaware of any i nst ance i n whi ch the Supr eme Cour t ( or any

f eder al cour t ) deci ded t hat a par t i cul ar pr ocedur al pr ot ect i on i s

not r et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e under t he wat er shed except i on, and

t hen changed i t s mi nd year s l at er due to t he l aw' s i nt er veni ng

evol ut i on. I t i s not di f f i cul t t o i magi ne why t hat i s so: J udi ci al

i nt er pr et at i on of t he Const i t ut i on, by i t s nat ur e, bui l ds on

i t sel f . The exer ci se of seeki ng out t he f i r st domi no t o f al l , i n

hi ndsi ght , woul d make t he r et r oact i vi t y det er mi nat i on of any gi ven

new r ul e i nt er mi nabl e. So t he f act t hat Appr endi was ci t ed by

subsequent cases ext endi ng t he j ur y t r i al guarant ee and hei ght ened

bur den of pr oof t o mandat or y st at e sent enci ng gui del i nes, Bl akel y

v. Washi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296, 303 ( 2004) , f eder al sent enci ng

gui del i nes, Booker , 543 U. S. at 244- 45, and t he deat h penal t y,

Ri ng v. Ar i zona, 536 U. S. 584, 589 ( 2002) , does not a wat er shed

-16-


17/22

moment make of Appr endi i t sel f . Put di f f er ent l y, when a non-

r et r oact i ve new const i t ut i onal r ul e i s l at er ci t ed i n cases t hat

cr eat e mor e new r ul es, t hat f i r st new r ul e does not t hen

aut omat i cal l y qual i f y as r et r oact i ve under Teague.

We note, t oo, t hat t he most r el evant gui dance t he Supr eme

Cour t has pr ovi ded on r et r oact i vi t y poi nt s squar el y agai nst t he

concl usi on But t er wor t h want s us t o r each. I n Schr i r o v. Summer l i n,

542 U. S. 348 ( 2004) , t he Cour t decl i ned t o make r et r oact i ve a new

r ul e pr ohi bi t i ng j udges f r omdet er mi ni ng t he pr esence or absence of

f act or s i mpl i cat i ng t he deat h penal t y, f i ndi ng "i t i mpl ausi bl e t hat

j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng so ser i ousl y di mi ni she[ s] accuracy as t o

pr oduce an i mper mi ssi bl y l ar ge r i sk of i nj ust i ce. " I d. at 355- 56. 6

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Schr i r o onl y cut s Al l eyne' s pot ent i al r et r oact i vi t y appr oxi mat el y

i n hal f , si nce i t di d not i mpl i cat e t he bur den of pr oof . But

Schr i r o t akes us i n t he opposi t e di r ect i on of a r et r eat f r om

Sepul veda whi ch, j ust l i ke t he quest i on f aci ng us her e, i mpl i cat ed

bot h t he beyond a r easonabl e doubt and j ur y t r i al pr ot ect i ons.

The Cour t ' s anal ysi s i n Al l eyne i t sel f al so under cut s any

cl ai m t hat t he hol di ng r epr esent ed t he t ype of change t o "bedr ock

6 Ri ng, 536 U. S. at 584, suppl i ed t he new r ul e at i ssue i nSummerl i n. I n Ri ng, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Appr endi r equi r edt he exi st ence of an aggr avat i ng f act or maki ng a def endant el i gi bl ef or t he deat h penal t y t o be f ound by a j ur y. I d. at 589. Ri ngi nval i dat ed Ar i zona' s deat h penal t y sent enci ng scheme, whi chpermi t t ed a j udge t o make such a f i ndi ng beyond a r easonabl e doubt .I d. at 597.

-17-


18/22

el ement s" of cr i mi nal pr ocedur e t hat woul d war r ant r et r oact i ve

appl i cat i on. As we expl ai ned above, Al l eyne was an extensi on of

t he pr i nci pl e al r eady set f or t h i n Appr endi . Al l eyne el i mi nat ed

t he anomal y i nt r oduced by Har r i s, and i t al i gned t he i mposi t i on of

mandat ory mi ni mums wi t h t he Cour t ' s t hen- exi st i ng Si xt h Amendment

j ur i sprudence. Li ke Appr endi but unl i ke Gi deon, Al l eyne "di d not

cut a new r ul e f r om whol e cl ot h, " but r at her "cl ar i f i ed and

ext ended t he scope of t wo wel l - set t l ed pr i nci pl es of cr i mi nal

pr ocedur e: t he def endant ' s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al and t he

government ' s bur den of pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Col eman,

329 F. 3d at 89 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( di st i ngui shi ng

Appr endi f r om Gi deon) . We t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he r ul e

announced i n Al l eyne i s not r et r oact i vel y appl i cabl e to sent ences

on col l at er al r evi ew on an i ni t i al habeas pet i t i on. 7

B. Has Butterworth preserved his equitable tolling

argument?

But t er wor t h' s al t er nat i ve ar gument on appeal r est s upon

sect i on 2255( f ) ( 1) , whi ch l eaves open t he l i mi t at i ons per i od wi t hi n

one year of " t he date on whi ch t he j udgment of convi ct i on becomes

7 But t er wor t h r el i es heavi l y on t he di ssent i ng opi ni on i nSchr i r o, i n whi ch J ust i ce Br eyer wr ot e t hat "[ t ] he maj or i t y does

not deny that Ri ng meet s t he f i r st cri t er i on, t hat i t s hol di ng i s' i mpl i ci t i n t he concept of or der ed l i ber t y. ' " 542 U. S. at 359( Br eyer , J . , di ssent i ng) . We have al r eady hel d, however , t hat t her ul e f r om Appr endi ( of whi ch Ri ng was a par t ) di d not al t er"bedr ock pr ocedur al el ement s of our cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em. "Sepul veda, 330 F. 3d at 60. And not hi ng i n t he maj or i t y opi ni on i nSchr i r o suggest s our deci si on was i ncor r ect .

-18-


19/22

f i nal . " 28 U. S. C. 2255( f ) ( 1) . But t er wor t h' s j udgment of

convi ct i on became f i nal on Oct ober 6, 2008, t he day t he Supr eme

Cour t deni ed hi s pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i . But t er wor t h v. Uni t ed

St at es, 555 U. S. 830 ( 2008) ; see gener al l y I n r e Smi t h, 436 F. 3d 9,

10 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( col l ect i ng cases f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "a

convi ct i on becomes f i nal - - and t he one- year per i od t her ef or e st ar t s

t o r un- - f or pur poses of 2255( f ) ( 1) when a pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i

i s deni ed") . Never t hel ess, But t er wor t h says hi s pet i t i on was

t i mel y f i l ed because t he r unni ng of t he one- year l i mi t at i on per i od

under sect i on 2255( f ) ( 1) shoul d be equi t abl y tol l ed t o r each hi s

cl ai m.

The gover nment cont ends t hat But t er wor t h' s f ai l ure t o

pr ess t hi s cl ai m bel ow bar s hi m f r om pr essi ng i t her e. We agr ee.

"I t i s bl ack- l et t er l aw t hat ar gument s not pr esent ed t o t he t r i al

cour t ar e, wi t h r ar e except i ons, f or f ei t [ ed] on appeal . " Tur ner v.

Uni t ed St at es, 699 F. 3d 578, 586 ( 2012) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng I n r e Redondo Const r . Cor p. , 678 F. 3d 115, 121 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ) . Nei t her t he magi st r at e' s recommendat i on nor t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s or der addr essed But t er wor t h' s equi t abl e t ol l i ng t heor y.

Thi s can har dl y be at t r i but ed t o oversi ght on t hei r par t ; i n or der

t o gl ean any hi nt of an equi t abl e t ol l i ng cl ai m f r omBut t er wor t h' s

pr o se mot i ons, we must i nt er pr et t hem ext r emel y l i ber al l y. Cf .

Hai nes v. Ker ner , 404 U. S. 519, 520- 21 ( 1972) ( not i ng t hat

al l egat i ons of a pr o se compl ai nt ar e hel d t o l ess st r i ngent

-19-


20/22

st andar ds t han f or mal pl eadi ngs dr af t ed by l awyer s) ; Boi von v.

Bl ack, 225 F. 3d 36, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( same) . But t er wor t h' s

Mot i on t o Vacat e, Set Asi de, or Cor r ect [ Hi s] Sent ence and hi s

memoranda i n suppor t of t hat mot i on do not ment i on sect i on

2255( f ) ( 1) or equi t abl e t ol l i ng.

On t he r ecord bef ore us, t he most generous poi nt s we can

make i n f avor of pr eservat i on ar e t hat But t er wor t h di d st r enuousl y

cont end i n hi s mot i on and memoranda that he rai sed t he Si xt h

Amendment i ssue at sentenci ng and t hr oughout t he appeal s pr ocess ,

and he al so st at ed t hat Al l eyne i s not a new r ul e. But t er wor t h now

advances bot h of t hose ar gument s t o suppor t hi s equi t abl e tol l i ng

cl ai m, so i t i s possi bl e t hat t hese stat ement s wer e i nt ended t o

ar t i cul at e such a t heor y of r el i ef . But t hat ver y r emot e

possi bi l i t y i s over come by t he f act t hat But t er wor t h di d not al er t

t he magi st r at e or di st r i ct cour t ( by, f or i nst ance, submi t t i ng a

mot i on t o amend hi s pet i t i on or a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on) t hat

he sought t o r el y on sect i on 2255( f ) ( 1) i ndependent l y of hi s

sect i on 2255( f ) ( 3) ar gument .

I n addr essi ng a ret r oact i vi t y ar gument pr esent ed by a

habeas pet i t i oner f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , we have st at ed t hat

" [ t ] he st r i ct ness on t i mi ng under 2255 r equi r es pet i t i oner s t o be

cl ear i n t he di st r i ct cour t when t hey ar e r el yi ng on t he pr ovi si ons

of 28 U. S. C. 2255( f ) ( 3) and maki ng an i ndependent cl ai m. "

Turner , 669 F. 3d at 587. The same hol ds t r ue f or cl ai ms made under

-20-


21/22

sect i on 2255( f ) ( 1) . We r ei t er at e t hat " [ s] uch cl ai ms must be made

i n t he di st r i ct cour t and not made and devel oped f or t he f i r st t i me

on appeal . Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant i n l i ght of t he

Congr essi onal i nt ent t o cabi n such cl ai ms. " I d. Ther ef or e, on t he

basi s of f or f ei t ur e, we decl i ne t o r each t he mer i t s of

But t er wor t h' s equi t abl e tol l i ng ar gument .

Fi nal l y, we not e t hat even i f t he equi t abl e t ol l i ng

ar gument was r ai sed i n t he di st r i ct cour t and pr eserved,

But t er wor t h woul d r un i nt o t he f ur t her pr obl em t hat t he di st r i ct

j udge grant ed t he COA sol el y on t he i ssue of " t he r et r oact i ve

appl i cat i on of Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, because the Cour t of

Appeal s f or t he Fi r st Ci r cui t has not yet r ul ed on t hi s i ssue. "

Uni t ed St at es v. But t er wor t h, Ci v. No. 2: 13- CR- 282- DBH, 2013 WL

6670377, at *1 ( D. Me. Dec. 18, 2013) . Ci r cui t pr ecedent and

st at ut or y aut hor i t y advi se us t hat we t ypi cal l y ought not "consi der

t he mer i t s of an i ssue advanced by a habeas pet i t i oner unl ess a COA

f i r st has been obt ai ned wi t h r espect t o t hat i ssue. " Per al t a v.

Uni t ed St at es, 597 F. 3d 74, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Bui v.

Di Paol o, 170 F. 3d 232, 237 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) ; 28 U. S. C.

2253( c) ( 1) ( B) ( "Unl ess a ci r cui t j ust i ce or j udge i ssues a

cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y, an appeal may not be t aken t o t he

cour t of appeal s f r om . . . t he f i nal or der i n a pr oceedi ng under

sect i on 2255. " ) . Al t hough we have r et ai ned t he di scr et i on t o

expand t he scope of a COA sua sponte, Hol mes v. Spencer , 685 F. 3d

-21-


22/22

51, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , we decl i ne t o exer ci se such di scr et i on

her e, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of our f i ndi ng of f or f ei t ur e.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we concl ude that t he di st r i ct

cour t cor r ect l y det er mi ned t hat But t er wor t h' s pet i t i on f or

r esent enci ng was unt i mel y. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he deni al of

r el i ef under 28 U. S. C. 2255.

So order ed.

-22-

butterworth v. united states, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents