Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03748/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03748-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dorian Ragland
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3748

___________________________

Dorian Ragland

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: April 9, 2015

 Filed: April 29, 2015

[Published]

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dorian Ragland requests a certificate of appealability (COA) following the

district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief from his conviction and sentence for

distribution of heroin resulting in death in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(prohibiting distribution of controlled substances), and (b)(1)(C) (if death or serious

bodily injury results from use of substance, defendant shall be sentenced to a term of

Appellate Case: 14-3748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Entry ID: 4269914 
imprisonment of not less than 20 years or more than life). In Ragland v. United

States, 756 F.3d 597, 601-02 (8th Cir. 2014), we remanded this case to the district

court “for further consideration in light of” Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. ___,

___, 134 S. Ct. 881, 892 (2014) (holding that, at least where use of the drug

distributed by the defendant is not independently sufficient to cause the victim’s

death orserious bodily injury, the defendant cannot be liable under the § 841(b)(1)(C)

enhancement provision unless the victim’s use of the drug is a but-for cause of the

death or injury). On remand, the government conceded it could not prove but-for

causation and Burrage applies retroactively, but argued the district court lacked

authority to grant § 2255 relief because the enhanced sentence Ragland received did

not exceed the maximum statutory sentence without application of the enhancement. 

Relying on Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

(concluding that a collateral attack on the career-offender Guidelines enhancement

based on an intervening change in the law was not cognizable under § 2255 where the

sentence was within the statutory maximum), the district court concluded that

Ragland’s claim was not cognizable under § 2255, denied relief, and denied a COA.

In response to Ragland’s COA request, the government statesthat after further

consideration, it now takes the position that Sun Bear is inapposite because error

under Burrage implicates not just a defendant’s sentence, but also his conviction. We

agree Ragland’s claim under Burrage is a challenge to the validity of his conviction

for distribution of heroin resulting in death, and therefore is cognizable under § 2255. 

See Burrage, 571 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 887 (stating that causation of the victim’s

death is an element of the offense of distribution of heroin resulting in death). 

Accordingly, we grant Ragland’s COA request, vacate his conviction for distribution

of heroin resulting in death, and remand with instructionsfor the district court to enter

judgment on the lesser included offense of distribution of heroin and resentence

Ragland for that offense. See, e.g., United States v. Burrage, 747 F.3d 995, 998 (8th

Cir. 2014) (directing entry of judgment and resentencing for the distribution offense

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Entry ID: 4269914 
where the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for that offense, but

insufficient to support the conviction for distribution of heroin resulting in death).

1

______________________________

We need not address the question, expressly conceded by the government,

1

whether Ragland procedurally defaulted his Burrage argument by failing to raise it

on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Brewer, 766 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir.

2014).

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3748 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Entry ID: 4269914