Sixth Circuit: United States v. Clarence Goodwin

No procedural error in review of sentence, as the retroactive element of the law only reduced the minimum term, not the guidelines range, and the court adequately recited that it had considered the petitioner's arguments. The reliance on the career-offender sentencing consideration to reach the guidelines range under the new calculation didn't offend Due Process.

Substantively, bootstrapping a challenge to the career-offender calculations to the retroactive changes would be unfair to those who were sentenced only under the former.  

DISSENT:

Career-offender guidelines are tied to the maximum sentence, which, although not made retroactive here, would be different under the new statute; court's explanations did not demonstrate that it understood the complexity of the deft's claims.

United States v. Clarence Goodwin

Seventh Circuit: Brian Hope v. Commissioner

 

Unequal treatment of a state's residents under the 14th Amendment right to domestic travel only occurs when a law expressly differentiates between residents based on their length or timing of residency.

Absent a violation of the right to travel, the equal protection claim should be assessed under rational basis review.

State's offender registration law is insufficiently punitive to base an ex post facto claim upon it; the stated purpose of the legislature was civil and regulatory.  In practice, it's sufficiently different from parole, as the status can't be revoked; its restraints and disabilities aren't sufficiently severe to make the law punitive;  residency restrictions do not serve punitive aims, and there is sufficient connection to nonpunitive purposes; and the law is not excessive in relation to its aims.

CONCURRENCE:

The registration law is permissibly retroactive; it imposes obligations beyond those prescribed at the time of the offense.

CONCURRENCE/DISSENT:

Requiring registration of residents who are subject to registration in their prior state of residence puts those residents on unequal terms with residents of their present state who are shielded from registration requirments by a decision of the state's supreme court holding the registration requirment to be sufficiently punitive to trigger ex post facto scrutiny.

A resident of the instant state who then travelled to another state where they were subject to registration requirements would then have to register in the instant state upon their return, burdening the travel right.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D08-16/C:19-2523:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:2748072:S:0

Third Circuit: USA v. Jamell Birt

As the First Step Act made retroactive the modification of the statutory minimum quantities of prohibited substances, a conviction under the parallel catch-all provision where no minimum quantity is specified was not made subject to retroactive review.   Circuit Split flagged.

[Inaugurating the First Step Act tag -- seems to be a thing of late.  It's the new ACCA, perhaps.]

USA v. Jamell Birt

Third Circuit: USA v. Reynaldo Rivera-Cruz

When the statutory maximum or minimum sentence is outside of the guidelines range, the range drops out of the sentencing scheme.  Subsequent revisions to the guidelines therefore do not serve as the basis for an appeal of the sentence.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173448p.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Kurt Harrington v. J. Ray Ormond

Habeas challenge arising from Supreme Court holding narrowing the causation element of the offense can proceed to argument on the question of retroactivity absent explicit retroactivity assertion by the Supreme Court where other circuits have recognized the ruling as retroactive.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0165p-06.pdf

Third Circuit: US v. Ronald Peppers

ACCA residual clause minimum Habeas showing is a mere possibility that the sentencing court acted under that section of the law.

Plea deal did not waive Habeas challenge to sentence, so long as the Habeas minimum showing is met, as parties can't stipulate to a sentence in excess of legal limits.

So long as there is a valid petition arising from a Supreme Court holding made retroactive to cases on collateral review, non-retroactive cases decided in the interval can cited to describe the current state of the law.

Under categorical review, state robbery statute isn't a valid predicate; petitioner did not brief whether state burglary statute is covered under the elements clause of the law; challenge to that predicate conviction is therefore waived.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171029p.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Frates

Sentencing predicate convictions are valid, given circuit precedent.

When a non-retroactive amendment to the discretionary sentencing guidelines is adopted before a sentence becomes final on appeal, an appeals court has the prudential discretion to remand to consider the effect of the amendment, so long as the consideration would not be unduly complex and the sentencing court does not recalculate the guidelines range.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1933P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Jonathan Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co.

Per curiam vacate and remand for a case decided after the relevant statutory amendment but before the court decision expounding it. 

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172409P.pdf

Ninth Circuit: US v. Pepe

Post-conviction amendment of statute prohibiting certain conduct when travelling abroad to include conduct while residing abroad permits abrogation of circuit precedent that held the earlier form to include both travelling and residence.  Lenity, Constitutional avoidance.

Dissent: It was a clarifying amendment in light of uniform judicial interpretation that both meanings were originally included.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/11/14-50095.pdf

Third Circuit: Ahmed Bakran v. Secretary

As the statute vests the determination of status in the agency and such action is statutorily unreviewable, supporting criteria developed by the agency are also unreviewable, as they are merely interpretive aspects of the determination.

As the felony conviction of the alien's spouse and sponsor does not impede the marriage, but merely the right of the spouse to live in the US, the right to marry is not affected; further, the question of residency is much broader, and the limitation of the rights of the sponsor following a felony conviction is a reasonable one.

As the statute that attached new limitations to the rights of those already convicted was clearly intended to apply to past convictions and referenced post-enactment dangers, there is no violation of Ex Post Facto; waived anyway.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/163440p.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Carl Leo Davis v. US

The Supreme Court's holding that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague announced a substantive change in the law that applies to petitioners seeking collateral review of sentences imposed under a parallel provision of the mandatory sentencing guidelines, despite the Supreme Court's subsequent holding that the provision in the guidelines was constitutional, as the gudelines, in the interval, had become merely advisory.

This substantive shift in the law was a sharp reversal from precedent, legitimately causing the petitioners not to raise the issue on direct appeal.

A second substantive change in the law that removed an alternate basis for the sentence of one of the petitioners did not trigger a mandatory limitation period for filing the writ, as it would merely have shifted the ultimate basis for the sentence.

A plea deal carve out excepting any constitutionally impermissible factor incorporates any unconstitutional input present at sentencing.

Prior offenses should be considered categorically when deciding whether the conviction is a valid predicate.

(Important decision.  Again, all this is quick work.  Don't rely.)

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-07/C:17-2282:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2167546:S:0

Eleventh Circuit:Alfonso Ponton v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Where a court recharacterizes a pleading as a habeas filing without informing the deft/petitioner, the petition does not count towards the statutory limit on second and successive findings; this rule applies to initial filings that predate the supreme court decision that established the rule.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610683.pdf

Fourth Circuit: James Angell v. Stubbs & Perdue, P.A.

Bankruptcy, Retroactive application

As Bankruptcy petition changed from reorganization to liquidation subsequent to the change in the statute regulating  subordination of secured debts in liquidation proceedings, administrative expenses incurred in reorganization phase cannot gain priority through the equitable subordination of secured debts.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151316.P.pdf