Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05406/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antwone Maurice Shaw
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0222n.06

No. 14-5406

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANTWONE MAURICE SHAW,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

OPINION

BEFORE: GIBBONS and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; REEVES, District Judge.*

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Antwone Shaw sought re-sentencing under 

Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), by filing a motion to correct his sentence under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Shaw argued that the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) took effect before he was 

sentenced, entitling him to the benefit of the five-year, not the ten-year, statutory minimum 

sentence. Because applying the FSA’s lower statutory minimum would not have resulted in a 

lower sentence for Shaw, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In late July 2010, Shaw entered a guilty plea to various drug trafficking offenses that 

involved fifty grams or more of crack cocaine. Under the law at that time, Shaw faced a 

 

*The Honorable Pamela L. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 

Tennessee, sitting by designation.

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 1
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-2-

statutory minimum sentence of ten years to life imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) 

(effective April 15, 2009 to Aug. 2, 2010). As part of a plea agreement, the government agreed

not to seek further enhancement of the statutory minimum penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based 

on Shaw’s prior felony drug convictions. The government further agreed to recommend a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a sentence of imprisonment at the low end of 

the applicable guideline range, but not less than any mandatory minimum term of imprisonment 

required by statute.

One week after the district court accepted Shaw’s guilty plea, the FSA took effect. 

Pub. L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). In that legislation, Congress adjusted the 

amounts of crack cocaine required to trigger certain statutory minimum sentences. The FSA 

effectively lowered the statutory minimum sentence of imprisonment for drug crimes involving 

fifty grams or more of crack cocaine from ten years to five years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) 

(effective Aug. 3, 2010).

In September 2010, before Shaw was sentenced, our court held that the FSA’s reduced 

statutory minimum sentences did not apply to defendants who committed their crimes before, but 

were sentenced after, the effective date of the FSA. United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575, 

580 (6th Cir. 2010). The Supreme Court later abrogated Carradine in 2012 when it ruled that 

the FSA’s more lenient statutory penalties do apply to those defendants who were charged 

before, but sentenced after, the effective date of the FSA. Dorsey, 132 S. Ct. at 2331; United 

States v. Hogg, 723 F.3d 730, 732 (6th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that Dorsey abrogated 

Carradine). When the district court sentenced Shaw on February 4, 2011, however, Dorsey had 

not been decided and the court was bound by Carradine to apply the pre-FSA ten-year statutory 

minimum sentence. The court granted Shaw the benefit of the lowered crack cocaine sentencing 

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 2
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-3-

guidelines, effective November 1, 2010, that were promulgated by the Sentencing Commission 

on an emergency basis as directed by Congress in the FSA. The Presentence Report (PSR) set 

Shaw’s total adjusted offense level at 25. With a criminal history category of IV, the advisory 

guideline range was 84 to 105 months. By operation of USSG § 5G1.1(b), however, Shaw’s 

“guideline sentence” became the higher statutory minimum term of 120 months of 

imprisonment.1

At the sentencing hearing, the government made an oral motion under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(e) to allow the court to depart below the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months to 

reward Shaw for his substantial assistance. The government requested a sentence of 84 months 

at the bottom of the guideline range, but it expressly declined to make a motion under USSG 

§ 5K1.1 to allow the court to depart below 84 months. Citing the § 3553(a) factors, Shaw 

requested a downward variance to 60 months of imprisonment to give him credit for time served 

in state custody on a probation revocation sentence arising out of the same facts as the federal 

charges.

The district court characterized the government’s requested 84-month sentence as 

“certainly a very reasonable recommendation,” R. 131 Page ID 477, but granted Shaw a 9-month 

downward variance to give credit for time already served in state custody. The court imposed 

the sentence of 75 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by five 

years of supervised release. The judgment was entered on February 14, 2011, and Shaw filed a 

 

1USSG § 5G1.1(b) provides: “Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater 

than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence 

shall be the guideline sentence.”

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 3
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-4-

notice of appeal.2 He later voluntarily dismissed both his direct appeal and an appeal from the 

district court’s denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

In this § 2255 proceeding, Shaw again sought application of the FSA and a reduced 

sentence. The district court reasoned that the only effect the FSA and Dorsey had on Shaw’s 

sentencing was to lower the statutory minimum sentence from 120 months to 60 months. The

statutorily-required sentence of 60 months fell below the 75-month sentence the court actually 

imposed. Because the FSA did not affect the legality of the sentence as originally imposed, the 

district court denied Shaw’s § 2255 motion.3

II. ANALYSIS

When reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we evaluate the district court’s legal 

conclusions de novo and uphold its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Howard v. 

United States, 743 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2014). The government does not dispute that § 2255 

provides Shaw with a procedural mechanism to seek the benefits of Dorsey, see United States v.

Parker, 762 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2014), but the government does not agree that Shaw is 

entitled to any relief.

An inmate in federal custody may attack his sentence collaterally if he can demonstrate 

“that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or 

that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in 

excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(a). Under our precedent, “[a] motion brought under § 2255 must allege one of 

 

2Although Shaw agreed in his plea agreement to waive his right to direct appeal and to 

file a § 2255 motion, the government has not sought to enforce Shaw’s waivers.

3We take judicial notice that, on January 15, 2015, the district court further reduced 

Shaw’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) to 62 months of imprisonment, effective November 1, 2015, 

based on a crack cocaine guideline recently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. R. 182.

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 4
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-5-

three bases as a threshold standard: (1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence 

imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to 

render the entire proceeding invalid.” Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 

2001) (citing United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185–86 (1979)).

Shaw does not point us to any error of constitutional magnitude that occurred at his 

sentencing hearing. He argued below that his sentence violated the Equal Protection Clause of 

the Constitution, but he has not renewed that argument on appeal. He also does not contend that 

his sentence was outside the statutory limits. Thus, to prevail under § 2255, Shaw must establish 

that a fundamental error of fact or law rendered his entire sentencing proceeding invalid. He has 

not carried his burden to make this showing.

Most of the cases Shaw cites in support of his request for relief were decided in the 

context of sentencing reduction motions filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10. 

Those authorities do not apply here. The only question we must address in this § 2255 

proceeding is whether the district court’s application of the 120-month statutory minimum at the 

original sentencing, rather than the FSA’s lower 60-month minimum, constituted a fundamental 

defect in the sentencing that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error in 

violation of Shaw’s due process rights. See Wright v. United States, 182 F.3d 458, 463 (6th Cir. 

1999).

We conclude that no such fundamental error of fact or law occurred because our 

Carradine holding required the district court to apply the 120-month statutory minimum that was

in effect at the time of the original sentencing in February 2011. Although Dorsey later clarified 

that the FSA’s lower 60-month statutory minimum applied to Shaw, his sentence would 

nonetheless remain the same, even applying the lower minimum penalty. A statutory minimum 

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 5
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-6-

sentence of 60 months lies below the bottom of Shaw’s guideline range of 84 to 105 months, and 

the government declined to make a § 5K1.1 motion that would have allowed the court to depart 

below the bottom of the guideline range for substantial assistance. To Shaw’s benefit, the 

district court varied downward to impose a sentence of 75 months to grant Shaw credit for time 

served in state custody. The FSA’s lower statutory minimum, even if applied, would have had 

no effect on Shaw’s sentence. See United States v. Joiner, 727 F.3d 601, 607–08 (6th Cir. 2013) 

(discussing cases where a statutory minimum below the defendant’s guideline range plays no 

role in sentencing).

Shaw contends that he is entitled to a sentencing reduction because the FSA effectively 

lowered his guideline range. He reasons that, because the pre-FSA statutory minimum of 

120 months was higher than the guideline range of 84 to 105 months, USSG § 5G1.1(b)(1) 

increased his guideline sentence to 120 months. Then, when the FSA lowered the statutory 

minimum from 120 months to 60 months, the FSA had the effect of lowering his guideline range 

and now he should receive a sentencing reduction. This argument would be relevant if Shaw 

were requesting a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Under that statute, Shaw would have 

to show that his “term of imprisonment [was] based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Here, the issue for 

resolution is whether Shaw can show a fundamental defect in his original sentencing that 

requires § 2255 relief, and he has not done so.

III. CONCLUSION

The district court properly followed existing law when, at the original sentencing in 

February 2011, it applied the pre-FSA statutory minimum of 120 months. Dorsey later clarified 

that the FSA’s lower statutory minimum applied, but because that penalty was below Shaw’s 

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 6
No. 14-5406

Shaw v. United States

-7-

guideline range, it had no effect on his sentencing. Shaw has not demonstrated that a 

fundamental defect in his sentencing resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious 

error in violation of his due process rights. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the 

district court.

 Case: 14-5406 Document: 24-1 Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 7