T h i s o p i n i o n w a s r e l e a s e d i n i t i a l l y i n ty p e s c r i p tf o r m.  

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2919 L UIS M. N ARVAEZ, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- cv-222

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 7, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UNE 3, 2011

A MEND ED D ECE MBE R 6, 2011 

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANNE a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . In 200 3, Lu i s Narvae z pl eaded gu il ty t o b a n k robbery, a viol ation of 18 U

. S. C
. § 2113(a). The dis tr i ct c ourtse ntence d M r. N ar vaez as a car eer offender und erthe U ni ted S tat es Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes2 N o. 09

- 2919

Th e j ur i s di c t i ono fth e di s t r i c tc ou r twa s ba s e d o n 2 8 U. S
. C. 1 §§ 13 31 an d 22 55 an d 18 U
. S. C. § 32 31
. W e have j ur i s di c t i on u n d er 28 U .S.C . §§ 12 9 1 an d 22 5 3 (a ). T h e t e r m “ mi s c a r r i a g e o fj u s t i c e ” c o me s fr o m th e S u p r e me 2 Co urt’ s holding that a non-j uris dicti onal, no n -con st itutional err o r o f l a w i s not a basi s f or col lat eral att ack und er § 2255 unl es s the e rr or i s “a fundam en t al defec twhi c h i nhe re ntly res ults i n a com plet e m is carr iage o f j usti ce. ” H i l l v. Un i te d S tat es , 3 6 8 U .S. 4 2 4 , 42 8 (19 6 2 ); se e al so Un i t ed Sta t es v. A d d o n iz io , 44 2 U .S. 1 7 8 , 18 5 (19 7 9 ). § 4 B1
. 1 b e c a us e h i s r e c o r d r e v e a l e d two p r i o re s c a pe convi cti ons i nvol vi ng f ai l ure to re turn t o confinem ent, viol ations of W isc ons in Statu te sect ion 946.42(3)( a). M r. N ar va ez lat er filed a m ot ion to va c a t e h is se n te n c e un d er 28 U .S.C
. § 2 25 5(a ); he as se rt ed th at im p os iti o n o fthe ca r ee r o ffen der st atus was i l l eg ali n l i g hto fthe S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n s i n B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 55 3 U. S
. 1 3 7 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd C ha m bers v . U nited Sta tes , 55 5 U.S
. 12 2, 129 S. Ct. 68 7 ( 2009 )
. T h e d istr i ct c ourtdeni ed M r. N ar vaez ’ s m oti on; it rul ed that Bega ya nd C ha m bers d id no t apply r et r oact i ve l y t o c as es o n c o l l at er alr ev i ew. The cour t then gr anted hi m a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty. 1 W e co ncl ud e that Bega ya nd C ha m bers applyr etr oac ti vel y t o M r. N ar vaez ’ s ca se. Because M r. N ar vaez ’ s ca re er offender sente nce was i m proper, hi s per i od ofi ncarc er ati on e xceeds that per m i tte d by l aw and const i tutes a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce. H e i s there f ore enti tl ed to 2 r el i efunde r§ 2 25 5. Acco r di ng l y, we r ev er se the j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t an d r emand f o rr es en te nc i ngN o. 09

- 2919 3

This opini on has been c ir culat ed am ong al l j ud ges ofthi s court 3 i n r eg ul ar ac t i ve s er vi c e purs uan t t o Ci rc ui t Rule 40 ( e)
. No j udge f avored to hear this cas e en banc. U nd er exi st ing ci rcui t prec edent atthe ti m e ofs ente ncing, M r. 4 N ar vae z’ s fel ony es c ape c onvi c t i ons c ons t i t ut ed “ crim e[ s ] of vi ol en c e” within the m ea ni ng o fthe c ar ee r offen der gui del i ne because they w ere held to “ otherwise i nvo lve[ ] condu ctthat pre s en t [ ed] a s er i ous pot en t i al ri s k ofphys i c al i nj ur y t o a no th er ,” U .S.S .G . § 4B 1 .2(a )(2). Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v. Brya nt, 310 F. 3d 5 5 0 , 55 3 -5 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 2 ). A s a c a r eer o ffen d er, M r. N arv aez w as assig ne d an offen se 5 l eve l of32
. H e re c ei ved a thr ee - l eve l reduc t i on f or ac c ept anc e of (co n tin u ed ...) wi th o u ti mpo s i t i o n o ft h e c a r e e ro ffe n d e rs t a t u s . No o the r a s pe c t o f the s e nt e nc e de t e r mi na t i o n i s t o b e di st urb e d. 3

I

B AC KGR OUND I n 200 3, M r. N ar vaez pl eaded gui l ty to bank robber y, a viol ation of 18 U

. S. C
. § 2113(a). Th e sen ten cing cou rt d es ign at ed h im as a c ar ee r offe n d er , seeU. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 1, b ase d on two pri ores cape co nvi cti ons, under W i sco nsi n St atute se cti on 9 46. 42 (3)( a) , thati nvol ved f ai l i ng to r etur n to co nfi ne m en t. The s en te nc i ng 4 co ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n ofth e c areer off en ders ta tu s i ncre ase d the then-m andator y s entencing r ange f or M r. N ar vaez fro m 10 0- 125 m onths to 151- 188 m onths. 54 N o. 09

- 2919

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 res pon sibili ty, result ing i n a t otal adjust ed offense l evel of29. Under the the n- m anda t or y S en ten c i ng Gui del i ne s , pai ri ng the of fense l evel of29 with a c ri m inal his tory c ategory ofV I r es ulte d in a g u id eline s ran g e of 151 -188 m on ths. Sec ti on 924( e) ( 2) ( B) ofTit le 18 defines “viole nt fel ony” as 6 “a ny c ri m e puni s habl e by i m pri s onm en tf or a t er m e xc ee di ng one ye ar, or an y a c tofj uven i l e del i nqu en c y i nvol vi ng the us e or c a r r yi ngo fa fi r e a r m , k ni fe , o r de s t r uc t i ve dev i c e th a twou l d b e pu nis hable b y i m p ri sonm ent f or s uch ter m i fcom m it ted by an adu lt, that

— ( i ) ha s as an el em en tthe us e, at t em pt ed us e, or thre atene d u se ofphy sica l f orce againstthe pers on of another; or (ii ) is b u rg lary , arso n, or exto rtion , inv olv es use o f exp losiv es, or other w is e i nvo lves condu ctthatpres ents a s eri ous potenti al ri sk o f p h y sic a l inju ry to an o th er .” Th e c o u r ts e n t e n c e d h i m t o 1 7 0 mo n th s ’ i mpr i so nm en t

— the m i dp oi nt o fthe enhanced gui del i nes r ange. F i ve ye ar s l at er, i n Bega y, th e S upr eme Co ur t cl ar i fi ed th e defini ti on o fa vi ol ent fel ony und erthe A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct ( “A C C A ”). I t hel d that dr i vi ng under th e i nfl ue nc e o f al co ho l di d no t co ns ti tu te a vi o l en t fel o ny u n d er th e s ta tu te
. Se eBegay, 5 53 U. S
. a t 14 8. The Co ur te xp l a i ne d tha tthe c r i mes l i s ted i n the ACCA “al lty pica l l y invol ve pu rpos eful, violen t, and agg re ssi ve conduct. ” Id. at 144-45 (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). Therefor e, the term “ viol ent fel ony” appli es onl y t o c rim es th at are “ro u gh ly sim ilar, in kin d as w ell as in d e g r e e o fr i s k p o s e d , t o th e e x a mpl e s [ l i s t e d i n th e AC C A] them sel ves. ” Id. at14 3. 6N o. 09

- 2919 5

Sec ti on 4B 1. 2( a) prov ides in pert inentp a rt that “[ t] he t erm 7

‘ c r i me o f v i o l e n c e ’ me a n s a n y o ffe n s e u n de r fe de r a l o r s t a t e l a w, pu nis h a ble by im pris onm ent f or a t erm ex cee ding one year, (co n tin u ed ...) I n C ha m bers , the Court fur therexpl or ed the defini ti on o f a vi ol ent fel ony un d er t he A CC A i n the conte xt o f a con viction un d er a n Il linois esca p e statu te for fai lure to re portf orpenal c onfi nem ent, a sta tute si m i l ar to the W i sco nsi n l aw under wh i ch M r. N ar vaez was convi cted. The Court hel d that the f ai l ure to re portwas a “ passi ve” offense that did noti nherent l y invol ve conduct prese nti ng “a ser i ous potenti al ri sk of ph ysi cal inj ury to an oth er, ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 924(e)( 2)(B), a n d , t he refore, “fal ls outsid e the scop e of th e A C C A ’s defini ti on o f‘ vi ol ent felon y.’ ” C ha m bers , 12 9 S
. Ct. at 691, 69 3. Altho ug h Bega ya nd C ha m bers speci fi cal l y invol ved the AC CA , notthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes, we have r eco gni ze d t hat th e def i ni ti o n o f a v i o l en t f el o ny und erthe A CC A w as “r epeate d verbati m ” bythe Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on in defi ni ng a “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” i n § 4 B1. 2 a nd that“[ i ] t would b e inapp ro pri ate to treat iden tical texts d ifferently j us t beca us e of a differ ent c apti on. ” U ni ted Stat e s v. Te m pl e t on , 54 3 F
. 3d 37 8, 38 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Woods , 5 76 F .3d 40 0, 40 3- 04 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( noting tha t the l a ngua g e de s c r ib i ngc r i mes o fv i o l e nc e i n § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) ofthe A CC A and § 4 B1. 2 o fthe Se nten c ing Guidel i nes is i d en tical an d , therefore, interch an geab le)

. 76 N o. 09

- 2919

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 that

— ( 1) has as an el em ent the use, att em pted us e, or threat ened u se o f p h y sical force ag ain st the p erso n o f an oth er, or (2) is burg l ar y ofa dw el l i ng, ar s on, or e xt or t i on, i nvol ves u se of ex pl os i ves , or othe rwi s e i nvol ves c onduc tthatp r e s en t s a s er i ous p o te n tia l ri sk o f p h y sic a l inju ry to an o th er .” U .S.S .G . § 4 B 1 .2(a ). Sec t i on2 2 5 5 ( a ) o fTi t l e 2 8 pr ov i de s tha ta fe de r a l pr is oner 8 m ay c l ai m “the r i ghtt o be released upon the gr ound thatthe s en t en c e was im pos ed i n vio l at i on ofthe Cons t i t ut i on or l aws of the Uni t ed St at es , or that the c our t was without j ur i s di c t i on to i m pos e s uc h s en t en c e, o r tha t the s en t en c e was i n e xc es s ofthe m axi m um authori zed b y law, or i s otherwi s e s ub j ectto coll ater al atta ck , [and ] m ay m ov e the c ou rt w hich im p osed the sen ten ce to vacate, s et asi de or corre ctthe s ente nce. ” S ee al so supra note 2. On A pri l15 , 20 09, M r. N ar va ez fi l ed a m oti on under 28 U
. S. C. § 2 255 to v ac ate hi s s entence
. H e a sse rt ed that, 8 inligh t o f th e Su p re m e C ou r t ’ s r ec en t d ec isio n s in Bega ya nd C ha m bers , hi s pri orcon vic ti ons f orf ai l ure to re turn to confi nem ent did not quali fy as “cr i m es of vi ol ence” w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe car eero ffender gui deline . Th e d istri ct cou rt dism issed M r. N arvaez ’s § 2 25 5 m ot ion
. In its vie w , Bega ya nd C ha m bers di d not apply r et r o ac ti ve l y t o c as es o n c o ll at er alr ev i ew. The cour t nev er thel ess gr anted M r. N ar vaez a c er ti fi cate o f appeal abi l i ty. The Gover nm ent no w co ncedes that Bega y a nd C ha m bers deci ded questi ons ofsubst anti ve sta tu to ryco nstr ucti on a nd t h a tth e y a p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y o n c o l l a t e r a lr e v i e w. T he Go vern m en t furth er conc ed es th at, after Bega yN o. 09

- 2919 7

a nd C ha m bers , M r . Nar va ez’ s pr i o re sc ape c o nv i ct i o ns f orf ai l ure to re turn t o confi nem ent do not const itute cri m es ofvi olen c e und erthe car eero ffender gui del i ne. N e v e r the l e s s , the Go v e r nme nta r g ue s tha tMr
. Na rv aez d id n ot sat isfy the requ irem en t for th e grant ing of a cer ti fi cate of appeal abi l i ty because the cer ti fi cate does not i denti fy a substanti alco nsti tuti onalquesti on, as r equi re d by 28 U
. S. C. § 2253 ( c) ( 2)
. The Gover nm ent a l so ar gues that M r. N ar vaez i s no t e nti tl ed to r el i efbec ause no m i scar ri age o fj us t i c e o c c ur r e d.

II DI S C US S I ON A. The parti es agr ee that M r. N ar vaez ’s m oti on under § 2 2 5 5 wa s t i mel y a nd tha tMr
. Na r v a e z i s n o ta c a r eer o ff e n d e r i n li gh t of Bega ya nd C ha m bers bec ause both ca se s apply r et r o ac ti ve l y t o M r . Nar va ez ’ s co nv i ct i o n. W e a gr ee that the m oti on i s t i m el y. S ecti on 2 255( f ) ( 3) of T itle 28 p ro vid es t h a t a m ot ion is tim ely if it is fi l ed wi th i n o ne y ea rof “th e dat e o n whi chthe r i g h ta s s e r t e d wa s i n i t i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d b y th e S u p r e me Court, i fthatr i ght ha s be en newlyr eco gn ized by th e Su p re m e C ou rtan d m ad e re tr o a c t i ve ly a p p lica b le to case s o n col l ateral r evi ew . ” Ther e i s no di spute that the r i ght a sse rt ed by M r. N ar vaez

— the r i ght no t t o re cei ve ane nha nc ed se nt en ce b as ed o n an i nc o r r ec t unde r st an di ng ofthe ter m “cr i m e o fvi ol ence”

— was r ec o g ni ze d by the8 N o. 09

- 2919

I n Wel ch v. U n i te d S tat es, 60 4 F .3d 40 8 , 42 9 (7t h C ir . 20 1 0 ), ce rt. 9 den i ed, 13 1 S. Ct. 301 9 (201 1), w e u ltim ately held tha t the p etit i one r’ s s ente nc e “was i m pos ed i n a c c or danc e with go ver ni ng leg al p rinc ip les” b eca u se his “p rior con v ic tion f or the Illino is of fense ofaggravated fl eei ng or a ttem pting t o el ud e a poli ce offi c erwas pr ope rl y t re at ed a s a ‘ vi ol en tfel ony’ unde r the A C C A .” S upr eme Co ur t i n Bega ya nd C ha m bers
. M r. N ar vaez fi l ed hi s m oti on withi n one yea r ofbo th the Bega y a nd C ha m bers deci si ons. W e a l s o a g r e e tha t, i n the s e c i r c ums t a nc e s , the Bega y a nd C ha m bers deci si ons apply re tr oac ti vel y o n col l ate ra l re vie w . T h e re tr oa c tiv ity of a Su p re m e C ou rtru le depend s o n w hetheri t i s pro ceduralo r subst an tive
. B o usley v. U nited Sta tes , 52 3 U
. S. 614, 620- 21 ( 1998 ) ( disc ussi ng Teag uev. La ne, 4 89 U
. S. 2 88 , 3 11 ( 19 89 ) )
. In Wel ch v. U n i ted S ta tes , 604 F.3d 40 8, 41 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), ce rt
. de ni e d, 13 1 S. Ct. 30 19 ( 2011 ) , we obse rv ed that

“ Bega ynarrow ed sub stan tially [the d efend an t]’s ex p osu re to a s entence o fi m pri so n m en t. ” W i th the i m posi ti on o f th e “ vi o l en t fel o ny ” s ta tu s unde rthe ACCA , the de fen dan t i n Wel ch f ac ed, “ at a m i ni m um , fi ve y ea r s o fi m pr i so nm en t th at th e la w oth er w ise co u ld n otim p os e u p on h im unde r hi s st atut e o fc o nv i ct i o n. S ucha n inc r ea se i n pun i sh

m ent i s ce rt ai nl y a subst anti ve l i abi l i ty. ” Id. As a r e s u l t, we concl ud ed that because the Bega yru le w as su b st a n tiv e, it “is re tr oac ti vel y a pp l i cabl e o n col l ate ra lr evi ew . ” Id. We 9 have no reas on t o bel i eve that C ha m bers r equi r es a di ffer en t an aly si s. Inde ed, i n Wel ch , w e n ot ed th at t h e T en th C irc u it re centl y had held that C ha m bers w as re tr oac ti vel y a pp l i ca-N o. 09

- 2919 9 bl e o n col l ate ra lr evie w . See i d. at41 3-1 4; see also U nited St at e s v. Sh ipp , 58 9 F .3d 10 84, 10 89, 10 91 ( 10th Cir
. 20 09) ( hol ding that Cham bers art icu lat ed “a su b st an tiv e ru le o fs ta tu to r y i nt er pr et at i o n” b ec au se a de fen dan t who “does no t c o ns t i t ut e a n a r med c a r e e r c r i mi na l

. . . [ has] re cei ved a pu ni shm ent that the l aw cannoti m pose u p on h im ” (in te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed )). C ha m bers , l i ke Bega y, f al l s w i thi n the cl ass o fsubst anti ve dec i si o ns tha t “pr o hibi t[ ] a cer ta i n ca te g o r y o fpuni sh m en t for a c las s o f d efe n d an ts b ec au se o f t h eir s ta tu s or offe n se ,” O ’ D e l l v. Ne t he r l and, 52 1 U.S
. 15 1, 15 7 ( 1997 ) ( in te rn al qu otation m arks om itted ).

B. 1. W e tu r n n o w to the Go ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t re gar ding the c er ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty. One of the r equi re m en ts fo r obtai ni ng a cer ti f i cate o f appeal abi l i ty i s that a n appli cant m ust m ake “a substa nti al showing of the denia l of a consti tuti onal right.” 28 U

. S. C
. § 2253(c)(2). Th e Sup rem e C ou rt ha s ex pl aine d tha t, i n thi s co nt ex t, a s ubs ta nt i als ho wi ng re q u ire s “ a d em on st ra tio n th at
. . . re as on ab le jur ist s c ou ld deb at e whethe r( o r, f o rtha t m atter, a g r ee tha t) the pet i ti o n s hou ld ha ve b ee n r es o l ve d i n a di ffer en t m anner orthatthe i ssues pre sente d w er e a dequ ate to deser ve encour age m en t to proce ed further

. ” Slack v. M cD a niel , 52 9 U.S
. 47 3, 48 3- 84 ( 2000 ) ( i nter nalquotat i on m arks om itted ).10 N o. 09

- 2919 I n thi s ca se, the cer ti fi cate o f a pp eal abi l i ty ra i ses a cl ai m t ha tMr
. Na r v a e z ’ s i l l e g a lde s i g na t i o n a s a c ar eer o ffen derr es ul ted in a n inc r ea se i n h i s te r m o fi m pr i so nm ent that depri ved hi m o fl iber ty w i thou t d ue pro cess ofl aw . Rel yi ng upon prec edent that s ubsequentl y has be en ove rr ule d by Bega ya nd C ha m bers , the s en tencing cou rt conc lud ed , un d erstan d ably, th a t M r. N arvaez ’s tw o prior vi olent felonies m ad e him a c a r e er offen d er . C on se q u en tly , M r. N ar va ez w as m a d e eligib le f orr oughl y fi ve add i ti onalye ar s o fi ncarc er ati on w i thout anyj usti fi cati on in the sente nci ng sc hem e e stabl i sh ed byl aw. The Co ns ti tu ti o n g r an ts se nt en cing cour ts “w i de dis c re ti on in deter m i ni ng wh at sente nce to i m pose. ” U nited Sta tes v. Tuc k er, 40 4 U.S
. 44 3, 44 6 ( 19 72 )
. I t i s wel l

- es tabl i sh ed, how eve r, tha t th e Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se a ppl i es t o c er ta i n as pec ts ofthe s en te nc i ng p ro c es s. S e eHi c ks v. Ok l a h o ma , 44 7 U.S
. 34 3, 34 6- 47 ( 19 80 ) ( r ec o g ni zinga due pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n a t se nt en cing w he n th e d efend an t w as d ep rived of the j ury’s d isc re tio n to im p os e a low er se n te n c e t h an th e m ax im u m ); Gard ne rv. Fl or i da , 430 U.S
. 34 9, 35 8 ( 1977 ) ( plur al i ty op in ion ) (n ot in g, ina c ap ita l ca se , th at “s en te n c in g is a cr i ti calst age o fthe cri m i nalpro ceedi ng” a nd , ther ef or e, “the sente nci ng pro cess . . . m ust s ati sfy the r equi re m ents of the Due Pr oce ss Clause ”)
. There f or e, M r. N ar vaez has a “c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht to b e depr i ve d o fl ibe r tya s puni sh

m ent forcr i m i nalco nd uct o nl y t o the e x te nt autho ri zed by Congre ss. ” Whal e n v . U ni t e d S t a tes , 4 45 U
. S. 68 4, 6 9 0 ( 1 9 8 0 )
. Ce r t a i nly, as the di s t r i c tc o ur ta c k no wl e dg e d, “j uri sts o fr eas on would fi nd i t d ebatabl e whether th e pet i ti o n s ta te s a va l i d c l ai m o fthe de ni alo fa c o ns ti tu
ti onalr i ght. ” Slack, 52 9 U.S
. at48 4.N o. 09

- 2919 11

W e have re c ogni ze d that§ 22 55 r el i ef“i s appr opr i at e onl y f or 10 an err or ofl aw thati s j uris dicti onal, cons ti tuti onal, or c on s t i tute s a fun d am en t a l d efect w hich inh eren tly re sults in a com p lete m is carr iag e o f just ic e. ” Harris v. U n i te d S tat es , 366 F. 3d 593, 594 ( 7th Cir

. 2004) ( int ernal quotati on m arks om it ted)

. M r. N ar vae z’ s ar gum en t i n thi s appe al i s bas ed on t wo o f the se st atutory ground s. Fir st, he ass er ts that he is ent it le d to § 2255 rel ie fbecause the se ntenci ng court’ s app li cat ion ofthe car eer of fend er s tatus r es ulte d in a com plet e m is carr iage ofj usti ce. S ee A dd on izio , 4 4 2 U .S. at 18 5. Seco nd , M r. N arv aez sub m its th a th e is e n t i t l e d t o § 2 2 5 5 r e l i e f b e c a u se th e se n t e n c i n g c o u r t ’s erro r am ou nte d to a v iola tion of his d u e p ro cess righ ts. B eca u se w e beli eve thata m is carr iage o f ju sti ce enti tl es M r. N arvaez t o r e l i e f, w e d o n o tr e a c h Mr
. N a r v a e z ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 2. W e no w tur n to the m er i ts ofM r. N ar vaez ’ s cl aim s. 10 W e h av e r ec og n ize d th at se n te n c in g e rro rs are ge n er ally not cogni zabl e on col l ate ra l re vi ew , especi ally wh en su c h err or s c an be rais ed on d ire c t a p p ea l. SeeScott v. U nited Sta tes , 997 F. 2d 340, 342- 43 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( obs er ving “th at argu m en ts of the sort [the d efend an t] proffers [ i n hi s § 2255 p eti ti on] m ust be advanced o n dir ect appeal ornotatal l ”)
. M r. N ar vaez ’ s ca se, however, does not co m e wi th i n thi s gen er alr ul e. I t pr es en ts a s pec i ala nd ve ry n ar ro w ex c ep tio n : A p os tc on vic t ion cla rific at ion in the l aw has re nd er ed the sente nci ng co urt’s deci si on u n law fu l. See Wel ch , 604 F. 3d at 412- 13 ( re cogni zi n g t h at a s enten c in g e rr ori s co gni zabl e o n col l ate ra lr evi ew “w he re a ch an ge in l aw redu ces th e d efend an t’s statu tory m ax im um sent en ce below the im p os e d sent en ce”). M or e pr eci sel y, i t i s no w cl earthatM r. N ar vaez neve r12 N o. 09

- 2919

The Su pre m e Cour tha s addres s ed th e i s s ue ofwhethe r a n on- 11 const itutional, non-j uris dicti onal er ror i s a m is carr iage ofj usti ce on collat eral revi ew i n five c ase s. Four of thes e c ase s involved er ro rs ofa pro c edur al na t ur e, an d the Cour theld tha t no m isc a rr ia g e o f ju sti ce o cc u rr ed in th o se fou r c a s e s. SeeR ee d v. F arl ey, 51 2 U .S. 3 39 , 34 2, 3 49 -50 (199 4) ( lack of com p lian ce w ith sta tu to ry tim e l im it fo r c o m m en ci n g tr ia l); A d d o n iz io , 442 U.S
. at 179, 186- 87 ( subsequent change in th e p oli ci es ofthe Un it ed Sta tes Pa ro le C om m ission to con sid er g rav ity o f t h e o ffe nse in w h et h er t o g r a n t p a ro le ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Ti m m re ck, 441 U.S
. 780, 781, 784- 85 ( 1979) ( errorund er Federal Ru le ofCrim inal P ro ce d u re 11 re g a rd in g th e t a k in g o fa g u ilt y p le a ); H i l l v. U n i te d S tat es , 36 8 U. S. 42 4, 42 5, 42 8- 29 ( 19 62 ) ( deni al ofal l oc uti on at sen tenc ing, w hich violat ed Fed eral Ru le ofCrim inal Pr oc e dur e 32(a) )
. I n the o nl y c a s e t o i nv ol ve a s ub s t a nt i ve er ro r, whi c h r en der ed the s en t en c e unl awful , the Cour tf ound th a t a m isc a rr ia g e o f ju sti ce h a d o cc u rr ed

. S ee Dav is v. U n i te d S tat es , 417 U.S
. 333, 346- 47 ( 1974) ( subse q u en t change in l aw re nder ed defen dant ’ s c onvi c t i on and s en t en c e unl awful )
. The m i s appl i c at i on ofthe c ar ee r offen der s t atus

— w hich incr eas ed M r. Narva ez ’ s s en t en c i ng r ang e

— i s c er t ai nl y a s ubs t ant i ve er ro r m or e aki n t o the e rr or i n D a v is tha n th e erro r in th e oth er ca ses. sh o ul d ha ve b ee n c l as si fi ed a s a ca r ee ro ffen dera nd ne ve rs ho ul d ha ve b ee n s ubj ec te d t o the e nha nc ed puni sh

m ent r ese rv ed f orsuch r epeti ti ve andvi ol ent o ffenders. W e belie ve tha t th e Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in D avi s v. U nited Sta tes , 41 7 U.S
. 33 3, 34 6 ( 1974 ) , speak s t o the s itu ati o n h er e. In D avis , the peti ti onerso ught § 2255 r el i ef

11 aftera subsequent i nter preta ti on o f t h e statute, under w h i ch he was co nvi cted, es tabl i shed that hi s co nvi cti on and pu ni shm ent were “foran a ct that the l aw doesN o. 09

- 2919 13

I n In re D aven port, 147 F. 3d 605 (7 th Cir. 1998) , a federal 12 p rison er f i l e d a m otio n to v aca te, i n w hich he cla im ed tha t his c onvi c t i on under18 U. S. C. § 92 4( c ) f or “us e” ofa fi re ar m duri ng the c om m i s s i on ofa drug offense w as i l l eg al i n l i ghtofthe Supr em e Cour t ’ s dec i s i on i n B ai l ey v. U n i te d S tat es , 5 1 6 U.S. 137 ( 19 95 )
. I n B ai l ey, th e C o u r tr e s o l v e d a n o p e n ques t i on re gar di ng the defi ni t i on of the t er m “us e” i n the s t atut e, ho l di ng th a t “ u se ” o f a fir ea rm re q u ir es m o re th a n “ m e re p o sse ssi o n .” 51 6 U. S. at14 3. W e he l d i n D aven portth a t, i n li g h t o f th e C o u r t ’s B ai l ey decis ion, the pris oner w as “being held in pris on f or a nonexis tentcr im e, ” and , the ref ore, m ay be enti tl ed to col lat eral relief ba sed up on his B ai l ey cl aim
. 147 F. 3d at 610. not m ake cr i m i nal

. ” Id. a t 346. The S upr eme Co ur t co ncl ud ed th at“ [ t] he r e ca n b e no r o o m f o rdo ubttha t su cha ci rcum sta nce inherent l y r esul ts i n a c om ple te m i scar ri age of j usti ce. ” Id. ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed); s e e a l so C urtis v . U nited Sta tes , 2 9 4 F
. 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 02) ( “[A ] p erson convi cted o fan a ct that the l aw d oes not m ake crim inal m ay obta in coll a t e ral reli ef. ”). M oreover, i n In re D a ven po rt, 1 4 7F
. 3 d 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) , we f o und th at th e defen dan t was “ i nde ed be i ng hel d in p ri son f ora nonexi ste nt cr i m e, ” a nd , acc or dingl y, he m ay be en titl ed to coll ateral rel ief

. 12 A l though these case s prov id e co l l ate ra lr el i efwh en a defendant i s i nnocent ofthe und er l yi ng cr i m e, we bel i eve that re aso ni ng e x te nd s t o thi s ca se, wh er e a post
co n v ic t ion Sup rem e C ou rt ruli ng m ad e clear that M r. N ar va ez was no t e l i g ibl e f o rthe c at eg o r i za ti o n o fv i o l en t off en derwro ng ful l y i m po se d upo n h i m . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t : “ W he n the e l e men t s o fa cr i me a r e n a r r o we d,14 N o. 09

- 2919

A c c ord U n i te d S tat es v. Tiger, 5 3 8 F. 3 d 1 2 9 7, 1 2 9 8 ( 1 0 th Cir

. 13 2 0 0 8 ) (h o l d i n g , o n d i r e c tr e v i e w o f a s e n t e n c e , th a t“ th e C o u r t ’s r e a s o n i n g i n B ega y app li es equall y to the s ente ncing guidelin es ” ). that change ser ves to prohibi t anypu n ishm ent for th e c on d u c t. Bega ypro hibi ts s o meo fthatpunishm en t. W e bel i eve , how eve r, that thi s dist i ncti on i s o ne o f deg ree, noton eof

ki nd
. ” Wel ch , 604 F.3d at41 5 ( l as t e m p h as is adde d )
. Inde ed, i n Wel ch , w e foun d the d efend an t’s ch allenge t o hi s s entence under the A CC A “a nal ogo us” to the s i tu at i o n in D avis wher e th e defen dan t’s pu ni sh

m en t “ for an ac t t h at th e la w d oe s n o t m a k e cr im in al” re sul ted i n “a com ple te m i scar ri age o fj usti ce. ” Id. at 41 3 n.6 (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). Ourde ci si o n in Wel ch a ddr essed a s en te nc e unde rthe AC CA , b utthe de fi ni ti o n o f“ vi o l en t fel o ny ” unde rthe A CC A i s the sam e as the defi ni ti on o f“cr i m e o fvi ol ence” u n d er th e Se n te n c in g G u i d elin es . A s a res u lt, “[i]tw ou ld be inapp ro p ria te to tr eati denti calte xts di ffer entl y j ust because of a di ffer ent c apti on. ” Temple t on , 543 F. 3d at 380. 13 M o r eo ve r, at th e ti m e o f M r . N ar va ez ’ s se nt en cing, the Gu i del in es were m a nd a to ry . The i m posi ti on o fa car eer offender sta tus there f or e incre ase d the s entencing r ange th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as au th or ize d to em p loy

. See U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 43 U
. S
. 2 20 , 2 34 ( 20 05 ) ( “Be ca us e [ th e G u id eli n es ] are bin d in g on j u d ge s, w e h av e c on sis te n tly hel d that the Guidelines have the f or ce a nd effect of law s.”)
.N o. 09

- 2919 15 Th i s c a s e th e r e f o r e i nv o l v e s the c l a s s i fy i ngo fa n i nd i v i dual as bel onging to a subgr oup ofdefendants, r ep eat viol en t offen d ers, th at trad it ion all y has been treated very differ entl y fro m o thero ffenders . To cl ass i fy M r. N ar vaez as bel onging to thi s g ro up and ther ef or e t o i ncre ase , d ra m at ic ally , th e p oin t o f d ep ar tu re for h is s en te n c e is cer tainl y a s s er i ous a s the m ostgr i evo us m i si nfo rm ati on t h a t h as be en th e b as is for gra n tin g h ab ea s re lief. Cf. Tuc k er, 40 4 U.S
. at4 47 (g ra nti ng habe as re l i efbec ause th e trial j ud ge base d the d efend an t’s sent en ce in p art up on pri orco nvi c ti ons that w er e l ate r deter m i ned to be inval i d). A ccor dingl y, w e b elie ve that a m i scar ri age o f j us t i c e o c c ur r e d. The Go ve r nm en t su bmi ts , ho wev er, tha t th e se nt en cing cou rt’ s er r o ri n thi s ca se do es no t war r an t § 22 55 r el i ef

. U nl i ke the si tuati on und er the A CC A , M r. N ar vaez ’ s 1 70- m onth s entence w as actual l y withi n the author i zed 20

- yea r st atut o r y maxi m um f o r hi s cr i m e. The r efo r e, the Go ve r nm ent rea sons that, bec ause M r. N ar vaez would be exposed to the full ra nge of pu ni shm ent author i zed by C on gr ess for h is c rim e a t re se n te n c in g, an d w o u ld rem ain eligib le for th e iden tical 170-m ont h sente nc e un d er th e ad visory guid elines, hi s cl ai m does notpre sent a fund am ental defe ct. W e c a n not accep t this argu m en t. T he f act th at M r. N ar va ez’ s s entence f al l s be l ow the appli cabl e s tatutor ym axi m um sente nce i s not al one deter m i nati ve ofwh ether a m i sc ar r i ag e o fj us ti ce ha s o cc ur r ed. The i m po si ti o n o fthe car eero ffender sta tus br ande d M r. N ar vaez as a m al ef acto r deser vi ng o ff argr eat erpunishm ent than that usual l y m ete d out fora n o ther w i se si m i l ar l y s i tuate d16 N o. 09

- 2919 in d ivid u al w h o h ad co m m itt ed th e s am e o ffen se . I t cre ate d a l ega lpre sum pti on that he w as to be t re ate d d iffer en tly f r o m o th er offe n d er s b ec au se h e b elo n ge d in a s p ec ial c at eg or y re se rv ed for th e v i o len t a n d inc or rig ib l e . No a mou nto fe v i de nc e i n mi t i g a t i o n o re xt e nuat i on c ou ld era se th at br an d in g or its effe c t on h is sen te n c e. H is d es ign at ion as a c ar ee r offe n d er s i m p ly to ok as u n c h all enged a prem i se that w as not tr ue and gav e hi m no w ay of av o i di ngthe c o ns eq uenc es o ftha t des i g na ti o n. The s en t e n c i n gc o u r t ’ s mi s a p p l i c a t i o n o fth e th e n- m a nd a to ry § 4 B 1.1 career offend er categorization i n M r. N arvaez ’s c as e w as th e lod es ta r t o its gu id elin es ca lcu lat ion . I t pla ced hi m i n a v er y s peci alst atus for t h e ca l cul ati on o f hi s fi na ls en te nc e so l ely b ec au se the c o ur t r ul ed th athe w as a ca re ero ffender a n d that the co rr espondi ng guidel i ne s r e qu i r e d s uc h a s t a t us . S pe c ul a t i o n tha tthe di s tr i ct co ur t t o da y mi g ht i mpo s e the s a me s e nt e nc e i s no t eno ugh t o o v e r c o me the f a c ttha t, a tthe t i me o fh i s i ni ti al se nt en cing, M r . Nar va ez was s en te nc ed ba se d upo n the eq uivalen t of a non ex istentoffen se. A s t he Su p rem e C ou rt puti t i n Hi c ks v . Ok l a h o ma , 44 7 U.S
. 34 3, 34 6 ( 1980 ) , to ass um e that the sa m e s entence would have been im p os ed in t h e a b se n c e o f th e ca re er offe n d er p ro vis ion is “frailconjectu re” tha t evince s in i tself “an arbitrary disr ega rd o fthe peti ti oner ’ s r i ght t o l iber ty. ” Thi s e rr or cl ea r l y c o ns ti tu te s a m i sc ar r i ag e o fj us ti ce . The Go ve r nm ent i s co rr ect that M r. N ar vaez d oes nothave an abso l ute ri ght t o a l ower s entence
. N eve rthel ess , he doe s ha ve an abso l ute r igh t not to sta nd befor e the co urt as a ca re er o ffe n d e rw h e n th e l a w d o e s n o ti mp o s e th a tl ab e lo n h i m.N o. 09

- 2919 17

The G overnm ent invit es our att enti on to the Eleventh C ir- 14 c ui t ’ s r ec en tdec i s i on i n G i l be r tv. Uni t e d S t a te s , 6 4 0 F. 3d 1293 ( 11 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( enban c ) , No. 11

- 60 53 ( U. S. Aug. 17, 20 11 )
. The El eve nth Ci rc ui ti n G i l bert, ho w ev er, exp l i citly d id no t ad d ress the is sue in thi s cas e, nam el y w hethera guideli nes m is app li cation claim b ased on a ne w Su p rem e C ou rt ru le is cog niz ab le in an i ni t i alcol lat eral att ack. The E le venth Circui t c onc lu ded that i tha d “no r ea s on t o de c i de th at iss ue bec aus e thi s i s no t[ the defe nd ant] ’ s fir stcol lat eral att ack on his s ente nce. ” Id. at 1306. The Gover nm en tal s o i nvi t es o u r at t en t i on t o the r ec en t dec i s i on i n S u n B ear v. U n i te d S tat es , 644 F. 3d 700 ( 8th Cir

. 2011) (e n ba nc )
. Unl i ke the defen danti n Sun Bear, M r . N a r v a e z ’s se ntence w a s not w ithin the s ente ncing range had the care er offend er statu s n o t b e e n a p p lied

. N ev erth eless, to th e exten t a t e n si o n b e t w e e n th i s o p i n i o n a n d th e E i g h t h C i r c u i t ’s r e a s o n i n g i n S u n B ea rexists, w e resp ectfully d isag ree w ith ou r collea g u es on the E igh th C ircu it. T he career offen d er statu s ille g a ll y i nc reased M r. N ar vaez ’ s sente nce approxi m ate l y fi ve yea rs beyon d that author i zed by the s e nt e nc i ngsche m e. There f or e, M r. N ar vaez ’ s cl ai m go es to the fu nd am entall ega l i ty of his sen ten ce and asserts an error th at con stitut es a m iscarr i age ofj us ti ce , e nt i tl i nghi m t o r el i ef

. Be ca us e we c o n- 14 clu d e that M r. N ar vaez i s e nti tl ed to r el i efbas ed on h is c laim of m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice , w e d o n otrea c h h is d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m.
Conclusi on T he j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct court d en ying M r. N arvaez ’s m oti on f orr el i efunder § 22 55 i s r eve rs ed and re

-18 N o. 09

- 2919

m anded

. On re m and, the di str ict c ourti s t o i m pose t h e sen ten ce ap p li cab le w ithou t the i m p ositi on of a c ar ee r offe n d er st at u s . N o ot h er as p ec t o f th e s en te n c e is t o b e r e v i s i t e d.

R EV ER S ED a nd R EMA NDE D wi thI NS T RUCT I ONS

12- 16- 11