FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 21, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 35 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 8: 04 -cr- 00 60 2- RAL-TGW -1 ; 8 :1 0- cv -0 11 39 -RAL-TGW SHANTA TORI RIVERS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON, andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Sh an taTori Riv ers , a fed eral pri so ne r se rv in g asen te nc e o f 11 0 m on th s’im

pr is on m en t fo r hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on of afir earm an d a m m un it io n, an d po ss es si on of m ari

juan a, fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Ri ve rs pre m is edhi s § 22 55 m ot io n o n acla im of a ctua l i nn oc en ce o f th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d t o h is sen te nc e p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G § 2K2 .1(a )(2 ). The di st ric t co urt fo un d t he cla im was p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed , bu t g ran te d aCert ifi cat e of App eal ab il it y

reg ard in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g R iv ers ’s cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce. On ap pe al Riv ers arg ue s t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen itfou ndhi s cl ai m pr oc edur al ly defau lt ed . He clai m s ac tu al in no cen ce o f th e U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (a)( 2) en ha nc em en t b ecau se , inli gh t o f Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5 (2 01 0) , on e o f hi s p red ic at e o ffen se s, i s n o l on ge r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. He co nc ed es th at un de r ou r ho ld in g i n McKa y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 65 7 F .3d11 90 (11 thCir . 20 11 ) pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d , No. 1 1- 99 85 (Apr il 23 , 20 12 ), hi s ar gu m en t tha t h e is in no cen t o f th e en ha nc em en t b ecau se on e o f hi s p red ic at e co nv ic ti on s was m is cl as si fie d d oe s n otrequi re re ve rs al . He ass ert s, h owe ve r, th at McKa ywas wro ng ly deci de d, an d h e o nl y ne ed s t o s ho w th athe is in no cen t o f th e en hanc ed pe na lty rathe r th anfactua ll y

in no cen t o f th e p red ic at e o ffen se . Inan al y zi ng a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew fi nd in gs of factforcle ar erro r an d que st io ns of l aw de no vo . McKa y , 65 7 F .3dat 1 19 5. A 2fed eral cri m in al de fen da ntwho fai ls to pre se rv e a cl ai m by objec ti ng at tria l o r rai si ng iton di rectap pe al is pro cedur al ly barre d fr om rai si ng th e cl ai m

ina § 2 25 5 m ot io n, ab se nta sh owi ng of c au se an d p reju di ce o r a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Jo nes v. Un it ed

Stat es , 15 3 F .3d13 05 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ Und er the cau se an d p reju di ce ex cep ti on , a § 2 25 5 m ov an t ca n a vo idap pl ic at io n o f th e pr oc edur al de fau ltba r by sh owi ng cau se forno t ra is in g the cla im of e rro r on di rect ap pe al an d

actua l p reju di ce fr om

th e al le ge d e rro r.” McKa y , 65 7 F .3dat 1 19 6 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . A defe nd an t m ay als o s ho w a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e to ov erco m e th e p ro cedur al ba r by de m on st rat in g “ actua l i nn oc en ce.” Id. The actua l-i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on ha s b een ap pl ie d i n t wo d is ti nc t co nt ex ts :

“ fir st , inth e fac e o f a cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce o f th e cri m e o f co nv ic ti on an d, se co nd , inth e fac e o f a cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce o f a s en te nc e.” McKa y , 65 7 F.3 d a t 1 19 6. Th e actua l-i nn oc en ce-o f-a- se nt en ce ex cep ti on ha s b een ap pl ie d i n cap it al cas es an d re qu ire s a m ov an t t o s ho w “by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at , bu t fo r a co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve fou ndhi m el ig ib le forth e d eat h p en al ty und er the ap pl ic ab le st at e la w.” Id. at 1 19 6– 97 (quo ta ti onan d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . W e h av e n otex te nd edth e actua l-i nn oc en ce-o fa-s en te nc e ex cep ti onbe y on d t he cap it al sen te nc in g c on te xt . Se e id. at11 97 . 3Ass um in g t ha t the actua l-i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on canap pl y to no nc ap it al se nt en ces , a m ov an t m

us t s ho w th athe is factua ll y in no cen t o f on e o f th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s. Se e id. at 1 19 7– 98 . In McKa y , th e m ov an t ar gu edth athe was erro ne ou sl y

sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1 b ecau se on e o f hi s p red ic at e co nv ic ti on s was no lo ng er co ns id ereda “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” Id. at 11 91 , 11 98 . W e h el d t ha t the m ov an t’s cl ai m was acla im

of l eg al , rathe r th an factua l, i nn oc en ce an d d idno t fa ll withi n t he pu rv ie w of t he actua l-i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on . Id. at 1 19 8– 99 . In d oi ng so , we reco gn iz edth e Supr em e Co urt’s in st ru ct io n t ha t the actua l-i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on is “ rare ” an d s ho ul d o nl y be ap pl ie d i n a n “ ex tra or di na ry cas e.” Id. at 1 19 8 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Ri ve rs on ly alle ge s t ha t h e is leg al ly inn oc en t o f th e en ha nc em en t b ecau se ba tt ery on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer i s n o l on ge r co ns id ereda cri m e o f vi ol en ce. He do es no t al le ge factua l i nn oc en ce— i.e. tha t h e d idno t co m m itth e p red ic at e of fen se . There fo re, the actua l-i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y an d R iv ers ’s cl ai m is pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . Se e id. at11 97 –9 9. 1 AFFIRMED.

Rivers also ar gues that his claim is cognizable in a § 2255 motion, even though with the 1 guideline enha

nceme nt his actual sentenc e fe ll below the statutory maxi mum. In light of our decision that Rivers’s c laim is procedur ally defa ulted we ne ed not addr ess whethe r this claim is cognizable. See M

cKay , 657 F.3d at 1195. 4