## 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. 11

- 1245 B ERNARD H AWKI NS, 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 ourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:10- cv-00016-JTM

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Judge

. A RG UE D O CT OB ER 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D F EB RU ARY 7, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, C ircu i tJudg e . Thi s a pp ealfro m the denia lo f a m oti on und er 28 U
. S. C. § 2255 to set asi de th e s en tence i n a federa l cri m i nal case prese nts th e q uesti on w hetheran e rr ori n calcu latingthe appli cabl e guidel i nes s entencing r ange can be co rre cted in a pos tco nvi ctio n p ro c ee d in g, n ow th atth e g u id elin es are m er ely advi sory r atherthan, as theyf or m er l y were , m andator y.2 N o. 11

- 1245 Berna r d Hawki ns ha s a l o ng , l o nghi st o r y o fv i o l en t cr i m es , g un o ffen se s, e sc ape s, dr ugus e, a nd v i olation s o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . In May 20 0 3 h e a s s a u l t e d t wo U. S
. ma r s h a l s wh o we r e t r y i n gt o a r r e s th i m p ur su an t to a ben chwar r an t st emm i ngfr o m hi s f ai l ur e to a tt en d a co urt hear i ng o n hi s l ate st vi ol ati on o fsuperv i sed relea se. H e pl eaded gui l ty to havi ng co m m i tte d a vi olen t a ss au l t, w ith a w ea p on , th ath ad inflic te d bo d ily inj ury on one of the m arsh als. 18 U .S
. C
. §§ 111(a)(1) , (b), 11 14 . Su rp ris in gly , g ive n th e v iole n c e o f h is a ss au lt w i th a shar plypoi n te d p iece o fa bani ste r that he had ri pp ed out ofi ts m oo rings

— ano ffen se f o rwhi chthe sta tutory m axi m um se ntence w as 20 ye ars, § 111(b)

— h is gui del i nes s entencing r ange w oul d have be en o nl y 1 5 t o 21 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t, o rpo ss ibl y 2 4 to 3 0 m o nths ( the di s t r i c tj ud g e f o un d i tu nn e c e s s a r y t o de c i de whi ch ) , h ad he no t be ena c ar ee ro ffen derwi th i n the then w i del y und er sto od m eani ng of the car eer o ffender gu ideline. U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.1( a). T ha t guid eli ne i nc reases th e s en ten cing ran ge for a defen dan t who ha s “a t l ea stt wo priorfel o ny c o nv i ct i o ns ofei thera cri m e o fvi ol ence ora contr ol l ed substa nce o ffe ns e . ” A c r i mi na lr e c o r d o ftha tc ha r a c t e ri mp l i es anabn o r m alpr o pen si tyt o c o m m i t se r i o us c r i m es i n the futu r e a n d th e r e f o r e a n e e d f o ra g r e a t e rp u n i s h m en t to inc ap ac ita te or d et er h im
. R ya n v . U nited Sta tes , 21 4 F.3 d 87 7, 88 1 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Be l t on , 89 0 F. 2d 9, 10 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) , o ver rul ed on o ther g ro u n d s by U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gare ch t, 1 8 3 F
. 3d 671, 675 (7th Cir. 1999). H aw ki ns had two pri orfelo ny co nvi cti ons f ores cape, 18 U
. S. C. § 751( a) , and th ou gh bo th were “w al kaway”N o. 11

- 1245 3

es c ap es rat h er th an vio le n t b re ak ou ts , th e la w in t h is ci rcui t w hen he w as sente nced f or the ass aul t w as th at a w alk aw ay es c a p e i s a c rim e o f vio len c e. U nited Sta tes v. Bryant, 3 1 0 F
. 3 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 4 ( 7 th Cir
. 20 0 2 )
. T ha tma de H aw ki ns a car eero ffender and so ra i sed hi s guidel i nes ra nge t o 151 to 188 m onths. The j ud ge sente nced hi m to the b ott om o fthe ra nge. The se ntence, tho ugh f arabo ve th e g u id elin es ran ge th atw ou ld h av e b ee n ap p l i c ab le had the ca re ero ffen d ergui del i ne notbee n i n pla y, was w el lbel ow the st atuto rym axi m um f orH aw ki ns’ o ffense ofco nvi cti on, wh i ch as w e s ai d w as 20 yea rs . A t the tim e he w as sen ten ced , the gu idelines w ere m an dat o r y ; two y ea r s l at er th e S upr eme Cou r t in the B o o k ercas e decl ar ed them advi sory. H aw kin s’s app eal fro m hi s s entence was pend i ng in th i s co urt w hen B o o k erwas deci ded , and on the autho ri ty of that deci si on w e d ire c te d th e d ist ric t jud ge t o res en te n c e h im
. U nited St at e s v. Hawkin s , 13 6 F e d. App x. 9 2 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. On re m and the j u d ge re i m posed the 151- m onth s entence , and w e a ffi rm ed. 16 8 F ed. A pp x. 98 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 )
. Three yea rs l ate r the S up re m e Cour t hel d that a n “es cape” that ta k es the f o r m o fa f ai l ur e to r epo r t i s no t a “v iol ent fel ony” withi n the m ea n in g o fthe A rm ed Caree r C rim in al A c t, 18 U .S.C
. § 9 24 (e). U nited Sta tes v. C ha m bers , 555 U
. S. 122 , 1 27 -30 ( 2009 )
. A walk aw ay esca pe i s s i m i l ar an d i s al so ( g i ve n Cha m bers ) n ota vio len t fe lon y w ith in th e m eani ng ei thero fthatA ct o r ofthe si m i l ar ly w or ded car eer offend ergui del i ne. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ha rt, 578 F.3d 674, 6 8 1 ( 7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Temple t on , 54 3 F
. 3d 378, 38 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08); U nited Sta tes4 N o. 11

- 1245 v. Fo rd, 5 60 F
. 3d 42 0, 4 26 (6th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. S o Hawki ns fi l e d th e s e c t i o n 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n th a ti s n o w b e f o r e u s . The di st r i ctj udg e, i n h i s th i r d r ul i ngwi thr eg ar d t o the s en tence , deni ed the m oti on o n the gr ound th at the l ega l e r r o rtha th e had c o mm i t t e d in de e mi ngs uc h a n e s c a pe a vi ol ent felo ny was not the k i nd o fer ro r that can be c orre cted afterthe j ud gm ent in a c ri m i nalcas e h as be c om e fin al. Se cti on 2 255( a) autho ri zes post convi cti on a l ter ati on o f a se nt en ce tha t “was i m po se d i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Co nstitut ion or l aw s of th e U nited States, or th at th e cou rt w as w i thout j uri sdic ti on t o i m pose . . . , o r that

. . . was in exc ess o f t h e m ax im um aut horized by l aw , or is otherwi se subj ec t to c o l l at er ala tt ac k

. ” H awk i ns r efer s us to Na rva ez v . U nited Sta tes , 674 F.3d 621, 629-30 (7th Cir. 20 11 ) , whi chhe l d tha t a sen te nc e th atv i o l at ed th e car eero ffender sente nci ng guidel i ne c ou l d be s uccess fully a tta cked in a pos tcon vi cti on pro ceedi ng ev en th o u g h t h e s en te n c e w as sh or te r th an th e s ta tu to ry m ax im um . But N ar vaez , as o ur o pini on em phasi zed, unl i ke H aw kin s , had been sent en ced w he n th e guid eli ne s w ere m an d at or y. Id

. a t6 2 8

- 2 9 ; s e e a l s o B row n v . Ri os , 69 6 F
. 3d 63 8, 64 0 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); U nite d States v. W yatt, 672 F. 3d 51 9, 52 3 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ). I t w as arg u ab le th e r e f o re th ath is se n te n c e e x c ee d ed th e m ax im u m au t h or ize d by “la w .” Befo re B o o k erthe gui del i ne s wer e the pra ct i ca le qui va l en t o fa s t a tu te . C f. Sc o tt v. U nited Sta tes , 99 7 F
. 2d 340, 34 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 )
. De pa r tur e s we r e p e r mi t t e d o n s pe c i fi ed grou nd s, bu t i n t h a t resp ect th e guid eli ne s w ere no d if

fer ent fro m st atute s, wh i ch often s peci fy e xcepti ons.N o. 11

- 1245 5 N o t o nl y do the g ui del i ne s no lo ng erb i nd the s en ten cingj udg e; the j udg e m ayno t ev en p re s u me tha t a se n te n c e w ith inth e a p p lica b le gu id elin es ran ge w ou ld be pr o per . H e m us t det er m i ne whethe r i t is consi st en t wi th the s e nt e nc i ngc o ns i de r a t i o ns s e tf o r th i n 18 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3(a ), an d if h e fin d s itis n oth e m ay n otim p os e it eve n th ough i t i s withi n the appli cabl e guidel i nes ra n ge . Ne l s on v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 5 55 U
. S. 350, 351-52 (2009 ); R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 351 (2007 ). The fi r sts te p i n s en te nc i ng

— cal cul ating the guidel i nes ra n ge co rre c tly

— w as not changed by B o o k er . But the ste p i s l es s i m po r ta ntno w tha t th e g ui del i ne s, i nc luding th e c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e, U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 59 8 F.3d 411 , 415 (7th C ir. 2010) (en ban c), are m erely adv isory an d the s en te nc i ngj udg e, b eing f o rbi ddent o pr es um e th e re aso nabl eness o fa gu idel i ne se ntence, m ust m ake ani ndep en d en t det er m i na ti o n o fwhethe ra g ui del i ne sen ten ce w ou ld com p ort w ith th e se n t e nc ing stan d ard set forth in 18 U

. S. C
. § 3553(a ). T h a t i s a criti cal differ en ce b etwee n Na rva ez and the prese nt case an d also b e t we e n the p r e s e ntc a s e a nd U ni te d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 401 F. 3d 471, 482 ( 7th Cir
. 2005 )
. The j ud ge’ s er ro r in Palad i no was to d ee m the gui del i nes m andator y r ather th ana dvi so r y, thus f o r ec l o singa ppl ica ti o n o fthe s en tencing f acto rs i n sec ti on 3 553( a) , wh i ch m i ght ha ve i nd uced the j ud ge to giv e a l i ghterse ntence. That was a m or e s er iou s, a m or e c on se q u e n t i al, er ro r th an in th e p re se n t c as e. Palad i no cal led it a m i scar ri age ofj usti ce; the l es se r er ro r i n the prese nt cas e doe s no t wa r r a n ts u c h a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . T h e j u d g e r e i mp osed the 15 1-m o nt h sen ten ce after B o o k erhad6 N o. 11

- 1245

m ad e t h e s en te n c in g g u id e l i n e s m er ely ad vis or y, as he w ell kn ew wh en he re i m posed the sente nce. N o l onge r can i t be ar gued that h e im p ose d a se ntence “i n exces s o f th e m ax im u m aut horized by l aw , ” since th e statu tory ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e f o rHa wk i n s ’ s o ffe n s e wa s a s we said 20 years (240 m ont hs ). U n d e r th e regim e of B o o k er the s entencing j ud ge m u st c om plywith the co m m and of 28 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a) “ to i m po se a s en te nce su ffi ci en t, b ut not gr eat erthan necess ar y, to com plywith the purpose s [ ofse ntenci ng] se t forth in” the next par agr aph of sect i on 3 553( a)
. In re sente nci ng H aw ki ns the distr i ct j udg e m ade c l ea rtha t he c o ns i der ed th e 15 1- m ont h s en te nc e th athe ha d i m po se d a ppr o pr i at e, ev entho ugh n o l onge r com m anded bec ause th e care ero ffender gui deline was no l onge r m andator y. A nd o n postco nvi cti on re vi ew he c onfi rm ed t h at “ a pa rt from the ca reer offend er s e nt e nc i ng e nh a nc e m e nti t w as ap p rop riate for the cou rt to consi der Haw ki ns’ l ong and vi ol ent c ri m i nalhi sto ry ” ( em phasi s a dd ed) and ther ef or e that “H aw ki ns’ se ntence w a s re as on ab le e ve n w ith ou t a p p lica tio n of th e § 4B 1.1 c ar ee r offe n d er en h an c em en t.” H aw ki ns ar gues that he was “p u n i shed f orco nd uct th atis n otp u n ish ab l e ,” c on d u c t “ th atis n otcr im in al,” pu ni shed i n vi ol ati on o f“s ubstanti ve l aw , ” “ subj ec te d to an i l l ega lenhancem ent, ” a nd thathe ha s be en i n p rison “longer th anthe law p e r m it t ed

. ” N one of th ese asse rti ons i s co rr ect. W hat’ s t rue i s that th e j u d ge m ade a mi s t a k e i n r e s e n t e n c i n gHa wk i ns

— he r ea l i ze d tha t th e guid elines were now m er el y a dvis or y b ut tho ught that und erthe m a w al kaway es cape was a cri m e o fvi ol ence. Bu t no t e ver y e rr ori s co rr i gibl e in a p os tc onvi cti on pro -N o. 11

- 1245 7 ceedi ng, ev en i fthe er ror is n ot harm l ess . S up pose th e p robati on s er vi ce in re com m ending a s entence to a d ist ric t ju d g e m ak es a m ist ak e in ap p lyin g th e (a d visory) gui del i ne t h at the j ud ge doesn’ t ca tch. A s a re sul t he im poses an above

- gui del i nes s entence , wh i ch he w oul dn ’ t have done had he caught the er ror; no neth ele ss th e s en te n c e is b e l o w t h e s ta tu to ry m ax im um . The err orco uld notbe cor re cted in a pos tco nvi ctio n p ro c ee d in g. We l ch v. U ni t e d Sta tes , 60 4 F
. 3d 408, 41 2 a n d n . 4 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); Sc ot t v. U ni t ed S ta tes , sup ra , 99 7 F .2d at34 2; G ilbert v. U nited Sta tes, 640 F. 3d 1293 , 13 23 (11 th C ir. 20 11 ) (en ba n c ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i kal aj una s , 18 6 F.3d 490 , 495-96 (4th C ir. 1999). N ei th er s ho ul d a n e r r o ne o us i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe g ui del i ne s be c o r r i g ibl e i n s ucha pr o ce eding

— especia lly when th e i nt er pr et at i o n i s di sc o ve r ed to b e er r o ne o us aft er the proc eedi ng in w hi ch i t was co m m i tte d has beco m e finalthr ough e xhausti on o fappel l ate r em edi es. Fori n such a c as e the c hal l enge to the j ud gm ent depen ds o n th e r et r o ac ti ve a ppl i ca ti o n o fa ne w ru l e ( th e c or re c te d in te rp re ta tio n ), an d su c h ret ro ac tiv ity is disf avo re d because i t thw ar ts fi nal i ty i n the cri m i nal p ro c es s. Teag uev. La ne, 489 U .S. 28 8, 30 8-1 0 (1 98 9) (p lu ra li tyo pi ni o n)
. Pr ec ede nt i aldecisio ns c o m e po ur i ngo ut ofthe federa lco urts o fappeal s a nd the Suprem e C ou rt. I fev er y pr eceden tialdeci si on inter preting the gui del i ne s fav orabl y t o a pr i so ne rwer e a ti ck ett o b eing re sente nced, the J ustice Departm ent a nd the cour ts m i ght b e for ced “ c on tinu al l y . . . to m ar shalr eso urces i n o r dert o k ee p i n pr i so n de fen dan ts who se t ria l s an d appe al s [and s en te nc es ] c o nf o r m ed to the n- ex i st i ng8 N o. 11

- 1245 const i tuti onal[ and statutor y] st andards. ” Id. at 310. (It has e ven be en sugg est ed, tho ugh w e’ re sk epti cal, that j ud ges m ight be d is c o u raged from prop osing n ew i nt erpreta ti ons ofthe gui del i nes forfe ar thatfedera lco urts w oul d be inund at ed w i th cl ai m s forpost convi cti on re l i ef

. S ee Jo hn C. J effri es, J r. , “The Ri ght- Rem edy Gap i n Consti tuti onalLaw , ” 1 09 Ya le L.J. 87, 98-9 9 (1 99 9).) Re s e nt e nc i ngi s n o ta s h e a v y a b ur de n f o ra di str i ct co ur t as a compl et e r et r i al, b uti t i s a bur den, a nd the c u m u lat ive bu rd en of re se n te n c in g in a gr ea t m an y s ta le case s cou ld be con side rable. A bou t 80,000 pe r s o ns are sen ten ced i n fed eral district courts ever y year. I n ev ery ca se the j udg e m us t ca l cul at e a g ui del ines se nt en cing r an g e. A c ha ng e i n th e i nt er pr et at i o n o f a g ui del i ne c oul d ther ef or e, i fal w ays deem ed re tr oac ti ve, gr eat ly i nc r ea se b o ththe numbe ro fs ec ti o n 2 25 5 m o ti o ns a nd the num bero fr ese ntenci ngs. There i s a d iffer ence betwe enr ev er singa n e r r o ro n a ppea la nd c o r r ec ti ng the er ro r years la ter
. A n er ro neous com pu tat i on o fan a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e i s r e v e r s ib l e ( u n l e s s h a r mless) on d irect ap p eal; i t d oesn ’t foll ow that i t’s re ver sibl e y ear s l ate r i n a pos tco nvi cti on pro ceedi ng. W e sa i d i n Na rva ez tha t C h a m bers “is ret ro ac tiv ely appli cabl e o n col l ate ra lr evi ew . ” 6 74 F. 3d at 626. Final i ty i s an i m port ant soc i al val ue, but not i m port an t e nough to subj ect a defendant to “a p u n ishm ent that the l aw cannot i m pose up on hi m , ” Schri ro v. Sum m erl in , 54 2 U. S
. 3 48 , 3 52 ( 20 04 ) , s ucha s a se nt en ce tha t ex ce eds the st atut o r y maxim um se nt en ce f o rhi s cr i m e o ra g ui del i ne cei l i ng tha t has the f orce ofa sta tute because the j ud ge i s forbi dd en to exce ed i t. S ee Na rva ez v. U ni t e d S ta tes ,N o. 11

- 1245 9 sup ra , 674 F.3d at62 6; Welch v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 60 4 F. 3d at 41 3- 14; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ipp , 58 9 F
. 3d 1084 , 1089, 1091 (10th Cir. 2009). A n error i n th e interpreta ti on o fa m er el y a dvis or y guide lin e i s l ess se ri ous. Give n the int e r e s ti n fi na l i ty, i ti s n o ta p r o pe rb a s i s f or v o i di nga p un i s hme ntl a wfulwh e n i mpo s e d. Though dem ote d by B o o k er to be i ng m er ely a dvi so r y, the gu id elin es rem a i n influ en tia l. B u t h ow influ en tia l? These d ays o nl y a s l i g htmaj o r i ty( 53
. 1 per ce nt ) o fs en ten ces are w ithin th e ap p li cab le guid e lines range. U
. S. Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion , “ Prel i m in ar y Q u ar te rly D ata R ep ort” 12 (3rd Q ua rter R elease Prelim inary Fiscal Y ear 2012 D a t a T h r o u g h Ju n e 3 0 , 3 012), w w w . ussc. gov /Data _and_Sta t i s t i c s /F e de r a l _Se ntenci ng_ St ati sti cs/Qu ar ter ly_S entencing_U pd ate s/U SS C_2012_3 r d_ Qu ar ter_Report
. pd f( vi si ted Jan. 19 , 20 13)
. S ti l l, the gui del i ne rang es e xe r t a g r av i ta ti o na lpul lo n n o n- g ui del i ne se n te n c es , m ak in g th em clo se r t o s en te n c es w ith in that ra nge than they w oul d b e w er e ther e n o gu i del i nes. ( Thi s i s whati s ca l l ed i n ps y ch ologya n “ an ch o r i ng effect. ”) S o the j ud ge m igh t h ave gi ven Haw ki ns a l ower s e nt e nc e h a d C ha m bers be en dec i ded ea r l i er . Bu t he w ou ld n ot ha ve bee n req ui r e d to do so an d w e d on’t th i n kth a ta s e n t e n c e th a ti s w e l lb e l o w th e c e i l i n gi mposed by Congre ss w hetherdi re ctl y o r by del egatio n to the S entencing Com m i ssi on s hou ld , as H aw ki ns ar gues, b e c on sid er ed a “m isc ar ria ge of j u s t i c e” th atca n be co ll ate r a l l y a t t a c k e d, j us tb e c a us e the j ud g e c o mm i t t e d a m i st ak e enr o ut e t o i m po singi t. Tha t’ s th e ba l an ce the ca se s st r i k e be twe enthe i nt er es t i n fi na l i tya nd the10 N o. 11

- 1245 inj u st ice of a p os sib ly m ist ak en se n te n c e. Se e, e.g ., U nited State s v. A ddo nizio , 44 2 U .S. 17 8, 18 6 (1 97 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tim m re ck, 44 1 U .S. 78 0, 78 4 (1 97 9); H ill v. U nited Sta tes , 36 8 U .S. 42 4, 42 8 (1 96 2); Sc o tt v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 99 7 F. 2d at 342; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i kal aj una s , sup ra , 18 6 F
. 3d at 49 5-9 6. B o o k ermade revers ibl e o n di r ec t r ev i ew a l ls en te nc es b as ed o n the b el i ef, o ve r tu r ned b y tha t dec i si o n, th at t h e g u id elin es w er e m an d at or y. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pa l adi no , sup ra , 40 1 F
. 3d at 483. But re ver sibl e o n appeal does n’tm ean r eve rs ibl e in postco nvi cti on pro c e e di ng s , a nd i n a nye v e nto urde fe nd a ntu nl i ke Na rv a ez was not sente nced und erthe m andator y guidel i nes r egi m e. I n H ill v. U nited Sta t es , sup ra , 3 68 U. S
. a t 42 8, the S upr eme Co urt rul ed th ata de ni alo fa c r i m i na lde fen dant’s r i ght o fal l ocuti on ( the r i ght t o m ake a sta tem ent in cour t be f or e he’ s s entence d) was not“a n er ro r of the c ha ra c tero r m agni tude cogni zabl e under a wri t o f habeas co rpus” be cause i t was “ nei therj uri sdic ti onal norco nsti tuti onal

. I t i s no t a fund am en tal defe ct which i nhe r e nt l y r e s ul t s i n a c o mpl e t e mi s c a r r i a g e o fj us t i ce, noran o m i ssi on inconsi ste nt with the rud i m enta ry dem an ds o ff ai rpr o ce du re. ” Gr an te d, the e r r o ri n H il l probabl y was har m l ess : “there i s no cl ai m thatthe defendant w ou ld h ave had anythi ng atal lto sa y i fhe ha d been f or m al l y invi ted to speak

. ” Id

. at42 9. But i t was not ha rm less i n U nite d States v. A ddo nizio , sup ra , 44 2 U.S
. at 187, wh er e s i m i l ar l anguage

— i nc l ud i ng l anguage q u o t e d fr o m H il l

— ap p ea rs . Id

. at18 5. H aw ki ns has not tried to cat alog the su bset of m iscalculatio n s of ad visoryN o. 11

- 1245 11 gui del i nes that a re m i scar ri ages o fj usti ce that ca n be co r r e c t e d i n po s t c o nv i c t i o n pr o c e e di ng s r a the r tha n j ust l ega ler ro rs ; he a rgu es in effect that al ler ro rs ( except, presum abl y, har m l ess o nes) ar e m i scar ri age s o fj usti ce, and w i th thatwe disa gr ee. H aw ki n s w as sente nced ni ne ye ar s a go. H e has se rv ed alm os t t h re e-q u ar te rs of th e s e n te n c e t h ath e n ow ch all en g es a s il legal. Y eti t i s “i l l eg al ” ( hi s wor d, b utno t th e r i g htwor d) i n the s en se no t th ati t m us t be nul l i fi ed, b ut on ly th at, were he co rr ect i n cal l i ng i t a m i scar ri age o f j usti ce, i t would have to be rec onsider ed. I fwe or dered re sente nci ng, the j ud ge coul d rei m po se t he i denti cal sen ten ce. Th e d efend an t’s crim in a l r ecord w ou ld j us tify th e j u d g e ’ s d o i n g th a t
. I n d e e d we ’ r e s u r p r i s e d th a t th e to p o fthe g ui del i ne s r an g e f o ra v i o l en t as sa ul t wi tha w eapon bya hardened cr i m i nalo n two federa lo ffi cer s, i nfl i cti ng bo dil y injur y, i s o nl y 2 1 o r perhaps 3 0 m onths, a quar tero r l ess o f t he st atuto rym axi m um . I t would be n o su rp ri se i fa sente nci ng j ud ge, as ked to choo se betw een 21 (or 30) and 151 m ont hs , chos e the l atter. The j ud gm en t denying the se cti on 2 255 m oti on fi l ed b y th e d efe n d an t is A FFI RMED .12 N o. 11

- 1245 R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e, dissen ting. L a s t year this cou rt r ev i ewe d a rem ar k ab l y s i m i l arc as e butr ea ch ed th e o ppo si te r es ul t. Th e m aj o r i ty ’ s r at i o na l e f o ra di ffer en t re su lt h er e is illus or y a n d for th is r e a so n I re sp ec tfu lly diss ent. I n Na rva ez v . U nited Sta tes , 6 74 F
. 3d 62 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1), Luis N ar va ez , l i k e H awk ins , s to o d b efo r e a se nt en cing cour ta s a c a r e e ro ffe nd e r, h a v i ngb e e n c o nv i c t e d (j ust l i ke H aw ki ns) tw ice befo re o fes cape forf ai l i ng to r et u rn to co n fin em en t. Id. at62 3. J ust a s with H aw ki ns, the s entencing co urt’s appli cati on o fthe car eero ffender gu id elin e in c re as ed N ar va ez ’s G u id elin es ran ge sign ific an tly , bu t d id n otinc re as e itp as t t h e s ta tu to ry m ax im u m . Id. a t6 2 9
. Aft e rth e S u p r e me C o u r ti n C h a m bers cl ar i fi ed that a f ai l ure to retur n to co nfinem ent was not a c rim e ofvi ol ence and thus did nottr i gge r a ca re er offender enhanc em ent ( C ha m bers v. U nited Sta tes , 55 5 U
. S. 12 2 (20 09 )) , N ar vaez , l i ke H aw ki ns, fi l ed a pos tc on vic tio n m ot ion u n d er 28 U .S.C
. § 2 25 5 t o v ac at e h is sen ten ce . W e no te d tha t al th o ugh s en te nc i nge r r o r s are gen erall y not cog nizab le on coll ateral review , N arvaez ’s case pre sente d a nar ro w exce pti on, o ne in w h ich a m i sc ar ria ge of j u st ice en t itle d N ar va ez to relie f. Na rva ez , 674 F. 3d at 630. The pr emi se o fthe o pi ni o n in Nar vaez w as th at th e d efend an t had “an absolut e ri gh t n o t to stan d before the c ou rt as a car eero ffender w hen the l aw does not im pose that l abelo n hi m . ” Id. a t6 2 9
. On c e Na r v a e z had been l abel ed a c ar ee r offender, al lo fthe cour t’ s ca l cul ati o ns a nd a ss es sment s wer e fi l te r ed th r o ugh tha t l en s and consequentl y,N o. 11

- 1245 13 [ t] he i m po si ti o n o fthe c ar ee ro ffen ders ta tu s bra n d ed M r. N ar vaez as a m al ef acto r deser vi ng o f f arg r ea te rpuni sh m en t th antha t us ua l l y mete d o ut f o ra n o th er wi se s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed i ndi vi dualwho had com m i tte d t h e sam e o ffense. I t cr eat ed a l ega l p re su m p tio n th a t h e w as to be tre at ed d iffer en tly fr o m o th ero ffen der s be ca us e he b elo ng ed i n a sp ecial category reserved f or the violent an d i nc orrigible

. No a m o unto fe vi den ce i n mi ti g at i o n o re xtenuati on co uld e ra se that bra nd i ng o r i ts effect on hi s s entence
. Id. a t 6 2 9. The N a rva ez c o ur t was no t as su ag ed bythe f a c ttha tthe de fe nd a nt ’ s s e nt e nc e fe l lb e l o w the a pp lica b le s t a tu to ry m ax im u m se n te n c e. Id. Thi s, the cour t co ncl ud ed, was not al one deter m i nati ve ofwh ether a m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice h ad oc c u rre d

. Id. T he m iscarri age , a s hi ghl i ghted in the bl ockquotat i on above , was th e b ra n d in g of “c ar ee r offe n d er .” Su c h a lab el, inad d iti on t o cre ating a l ega l p re su m pti on o fi ncor ri gibi l i ty ( or perha ps be ca us e o fi t) , incr ea se d dr amat i ca l l y the po i nt of d ep ar t u r e fo r th e s en te n c e. Id. “[ T]o as sum e that th e sa m e se nt en ce woul d have be eni m po se d i n the abse nce of the car eero ffender provi si on, ” the Na rva ez c ou rtex p lain ed , “is fra il co nj ec tu re th atev in c es in i tse l fan a rbi tr ar y d isr ega rd o fthe peti ti oner ’ s r i ght t o l iber ty. ” Id. (int erna l citations om itted ). Despit e the r em ar kabl e co rr el ati on be tw een the f acts an d l eg alpo stur e i n Nar vaez and thi s case , the m aj or i ty gi ves Na rva ez sho rtshr i ft. I t doe s s o, i t s ays , bec ause N arvaez w as s en ten ced before the Su p rem e C ou rt d e c i d e d U n i t ed S ta tes v. B o o k er, wh en the Guidel i nes14 N o. 11

- 1245

wer e m an dat o r y a nd thus the j ud ge was b o und b y the d et er m in at ion to im p os e a p ar tic u lar se n te n c e. U n ited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220 (2005). T he m aj ority, Ifear, ha ng s its p reced en t-distingu ishing hat on an illusory di st i nc ti o n. I n B o o k er, th e S u p rem e C ou rt de clared that the U

. S. S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s, whi chc o ur ts b ef ore ha d c o nsid er ed m an d at o r y , w er e n ow on ly a d vis or y. Id

. at24 5. B o o k er i nd e e d ini t i a t e d a s e a c ha ng e i n s e nt e nc i ngpro ced u re s, b u t t h os e c h an ge s d o n otaffe c t t h e e rro r inth is case . Bot h be fo r e and after B o o k er, the fi r sts te p i n s en te n c i ng was and i s forthe sente nci ng j ud ge to b eg in th e se nt en cing pr o ce eding by co r r ec tly cal cul at i ng the a pp l i cabl e Guidel i nes r ange. S e e G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 38, 49 (2007). T his w as “ste p one” before B o o k erand re m ai ns “s tep o ne” no w . Ou r case s pos t- B o o k er ha ve r o ut i ne l y h el d tha t “a l th o ugh a j udg e i s no lon ger r equi re d to gi ve a Guidel i nes s entence , he i s r equir ed to m ake a cor rect det er m i nati on o fthe Gu i del i ne s se nt en cingr an g e as the fi r sts te p i n de ci di ng w h at sente nce t o i m pose. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vr dolyak, 59 3 F. 3d 676, 681- 82 ( 7th C i r. 20 10) , ( ci ti ng G a ll, 552 U
. S. at 50); U nited Sta tes v. G ibbs, 57 8 F
. 3d 69 4, 69 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. The Gu i del i nes m ust be the sta rt i ng poi nt and the i ni ti al b en c h m ar k. U n i t ed S ta tes v. H urt, 574 F
. 3d 439, 44 2- 43 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. In case afterca se w e hav e e m phasi zed th at even after B o o k er, a f ai l ure to i ni ti al l y c al cul at e th e G u id elin es p ro p e r l y c on st itu te s a lega l err or . See, e.g., U ni t e d S ta tes v. Chapman , 694 F.3d 908 , 913 (7th C ir. 20 12 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hal l i day, 672 F. 3d 462, 472 (7th C ir. 20 1 2 ); U nited Sta tes v. B a k er, 65 5 F
. 3d 677, 68 3 ( 7thN o. 11

- 1245 15 C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo ng, 63 9 F
. 3d 29 3, 298 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ); U nited St a t e s v. Sn yd er, 63 5 F
. 3d 956, 96 1 ( 7th C ir. 2011). Insh or t, th e e rro r th atth e d ist ric t c ou rtm ad e (a n d it d id i nd eed err

— eve n the m aj or i ty adm i ts that) o ccurr ed i n the sequence ofthe sente nci ng p ro cedure unalt er ed by Bo o k er . T h u s, th er e is n o d ist in c tio n be tw ee n th is c a s e a nd Na rva ez . It is true, o fco urse , thatthe sente nci ng co urt i n this case was not re quir ed to se ntence H aw ki ns acc or ding to th e G u i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n s . S t e p t wo o fth e s e n t e n ci ng p roced ure requ ires th e cou rt to con side r t h e fa ctors enum er ate d i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553 to eval uate w hether the Gu id el i nes r ange i s t rul y pr opergi ven par ti cul ar c on sid er at ion s. G all , 552 U
. S. a t 4 9 -50. Bu t the harm to H aw ki ns had al re ady oc curr ed

—before the cou rt could eve n turn to the a dvis or y par t o fthe Gu i del i nes. The j ud ge coul d now o nl y v i ew H aw kins thro ugh care er - offender ti nted gl as se s, and hi s ba sel i ne co nsi derati on be f or e a pp l yi ng the § 3553 f acto rs was m ulti tudes hi gherthan i t would have bee n otherwis e. Sup p ose, for ex am p le, that a sen t en cing cou rt de term i ne d tha tb e c a us e o fHa wk i ns ’ me nt a lo rp hy si cal c o nd i t i o n, a b e l o w- Gu i del i ne s s e nt e nc e wa s wa r r a nt e d. I f H aw kins stood before th e cou rt as a c a r e e r offend er, the jud ge would have cal cul ate d his se ntence as a ca re er offenderand then co nsi dered tho se m i ti gat i ng § 3553 factors, b e g inn ing from the 15 1-m ont h be nc hm ark. W ere h e n ot a c ar ee r offe n d er , th e jud ge w ou ld be gin by ca l-16 N o. 11

- 1245

Th e r e i s s ome di s pu t e a s t o whe the r the r a nge w ou l d h a ve 1 bee n 1 5- 21 m onths , or 24

- 30 m onths

. The di s t rict c our tf ound it un ne cessary to d ecid e. In a n y e v en t, b oth ran g es are m ag nit ude s l e s s tha n the 1 5 1 m on ths tha tHawk i ns r e c e i ve d. The Narvaez court em phasized thatN arv a ez’ s se ntence 2 occ u r r ed w he n th e G u id eline s w ere m an d ato ry , b u t that it had n o r eason t o c ons i der whethe r or no tthe di s t i nc t i on m a tt er ed

. Narvaez , 674 F. 3d at 628- 29. cul at i ngthe 1 5- 21 month rang e be f o r e co ns i der i nga ny 1 § 35 53 f ac to r s. The maj o r i tya dm i ts tha t H awk i ns might not have re cei ved the sam e sentence had he notbee n l abel ed a c ar eero ffender. Ithin k i t r atherm or e f ai r to c o nc l ud e tha tthe r e was no ch an c e t h atH aw kin s w ou ld ha ve bee n sen ten ced to 151 m ont hs after C ha m bers

. Face d w i th a Gu i del i nes r ange of15

- 21 m onths, o r eve n 24- 30 m onths, a fi ve to tenf ol d i ncre ase i n the sente nce w ou ld h ave be en shoc king. I n sh ort, t h e i njustice he re i s n o tr e c t i fi e d b y B o o k er . The er ro r and prej ud i ce occurred i n the propercal cul ati on o fthe Gu i del i nes a s a st ar tingpo i nt

— som eth i ng tha t has notchange d now th atth e G u id elin es are m er ely ad vis or y. Nar va ez i s o ur pr ec ede nta nd a fresh o ne a t th at
. Thi s pr ec ede nt 2 d e ma n d s th a tH a wk i n s b e t r e a t e d i n j us tth e s a me m anner as N ar vaez . The m aj o r i ty i s co r r ec t th at th e law has ch an g ed, but th e r el ev an t ch an g e o cc ur r ed i n C ha m bers a n d not B o o k er . The m aj or i ty ad m its that the j ud ge er re d w hen h e thought a walk

- aw ay esca pe w as a cr i m e o fvi ol ence, but ar gues that the r etr oac ti ve appli cati on ofthe C ha m bersN o. 11

- 1245 17 rul e s houl d not a pp l y l esti t underm in e the princi ple o f fi n a l i ty i nt eg r a lt o th e c r i mi n a lp r o c e s s . We r e we wri tingo n a b l an ks late , we m i g hta r g ue a g ains t th e m ajorit y’s ele va tio n of fin alit y o v e r fair n es s, as d id ou r diss enti ng bro ther s i n the 8th and 1 1th Cir cuits in i nd i stingui shab l e ca ses , ar gui ng tha t fi nal i ty m ust no t tr um p j usti ce where a co u rt m ust co rr ect a ca re er offe n d er en h an c em en t t h atall ag r e e w as im p os ed in er ro r. R o z ier v. U nited Sta tes , 70 1 F. 3 d 681, 68 9- 91 ( 11th C ir. (H ill, J., d iss en tin g); M eirov itz v. U n i t e d S ta tes , 68 8 F
. 3d 36 9, 3 73 ( 8th Ci r . 20 12 ) ( Br i g ht, J
. , di ss en ting ) ( “wi th

o utfi na l i tythe r e ca n b e no j us ti ce . . . [ i ] t i s equa l l y t r ue th at, wi th ou t j us ti ce , fi na l i tyi s no th i ngmor e th ana bu reau cratic ach ievem en t.”) petiti o n f o r cert. filed, ( U
. S. N ov. 20 , 20 12) (N o. 12-7461)
. But w e nee d not e ngage i n thi s pol i cy d isp u te abo ut the vi rtues a nd f ai l ures o f fi n a l i ty, f o ra l th o u g h th e maj o r i ty d i s c u s s e s a ts o me l ength the b urdens o fr etr oac ti ve appli cati on o fa new r u l e , s u c h a s th e o n e a n n o u n c e d i n C ha m bers , th atsh ip has ho i ste d the m ai nsai land left p or t. Thi s Ci rcui t has al re ady decl ar ed that C ha m bers ( an d i ts cl ose l y r el ate d an c es to r, Bega 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. Nar vaez , 6 7 4 F .3d at62 1. See a lso U nite d States v. W yatt, 67 2 F
. 3 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 3

- 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( no t i ngr e tr oac ti vi tyo f C ha m bers a nd Bega y ); Brown v. Ri os , 69 6 F
. 3d 638, 64 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( applying Beg ayr etr oac ti vel y o n c olla te ra l rev iew ); Welch v. U nited Sta tes, 60 4 F
. 3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2010) ( Bega yrule is r etr oac ti vel y a pp l i ed on c olla te ra l rev iew ), cert. denied , 131 S . C t. 30 19 (20 11 ); U nited Sta tes v. Sh ipp , 589 F. 3d 1084, 10 90- 91 ( 10th Cir . 2 009)18 N o. 11

- 1245 ( applying C ha m bers retroactively on collateral review ); S u n B ear v . U nited Sta tes , 61 1 F
. 3d 92 5, 92 7 ( 8th Cir. 2010 ) ( applying Bega yon collateral review ). The m aj or i ty fear s that e rr or s in the i nter preta ti on o f th e G u id elin es , i f alw a ys ret ro ac tiv e, w ou ld gre at ly incre as e th e numbero f§ 2 25 5 m o ti o ns a nd r e- se nte nc i ng s. The o pi ni o n in Na rva ez di d n ot a l terthe f act th at o r di na r i l y er r o r s i n ca l cul at i o ns o f the S en te nc i ng G u id eli n e s are n otco gn iza b le in a § 2 25 5 m ot ion
. Wel ch , 6 0 4 F. 3d at 4 1 2
. An i nt e r v e ningc ha ng e i n the l a w mad e applicabl e r etr oac ti vel y, however, can i nd eed r equi re a cour t t o re c ogni ze a “ m i scar ri age o fj usti ce, ” that m ust be c or re c ta b le on co llat er al re vie w . Id. at 412- 13, nn. 4 & 6. Sta nba c kv . U n ited S ta tes , 113 F.3d 651 , 654 (7th C ir. 1997). See a lso D a vis v . U nited Sta tes , 417 U
. S. 333, 342 (1974 ). B ut retroact ive ap p li cation of a law is not th e n orm and dep ends on whether a new rul e is c onsi dered to be proce du ra lo r substa ntive. I t i s cl eari n thi s Ci rcui t that C ha m bers “ f al l s wi th i n the c l as s o fs ubsta nt i ve de ci si o ns that prohibi t a cer ta in c ategory o fpunishm ent fora cl ass o fde fen dan ts b ec au se of th ei rs ta tu s o ro ffen se ” an d th u s is a su b st an tiv e ru le re tr oa c tiv ely ap p lied

. Na rva ez , 674 F. 3d at 626. Fu rt h er m or e, th is i s no t an er ro r th at H aw k i n s co u ld h av e ra ise d on d ire c t re vie w . A t t h e t im e, w e w ou ld have vi ew ed as fri vol ous achal l enge to the e stabl i shed pri nci ple that a w al k- aw ay cri m e i s a vi ol en t o ffense. U nited Sta tes v. C ha m bers , 4 73 F.3d 724, 72 6 (7th C ir. 2007), re v’d, 555 U .S. 12 2 (2 00 9); W yatt, 6 72 F
. 3d at5 20 ( m ar k i ng th e ch an ge in l aw after C ha m bers a nd no tingtha t on theN o. 11

- 1245 19 defe nd ant’ s di re ct a pp eal it had been wel l

- est abl i shed t h a t a w alk -aw ay es c ap e w as a c rim e o f vio len c e); U ni ted Sta tes v. G o lden , 466 F.3d 612, 614 (7th Cir. 2006); U nited Sta tes v. R ivera , 463 F.3d 598 , 6 00-01 (7th Cir. 20 06 ); U nite d States v. B ryant, 3 1 0 F
. 3 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 3

- 5 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t e d Sta te s v. Frankl i n, 30 2 F
. 3d 722, 72 4 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ); Seeals o Stanback, 11 3 F
. 3d at 655- 656 ( noting th at a defendant cannotbe re quir ed to posi t a n ar gum ent that would nothave h ad any r el evance pri or to a n i nt erven ing ch an ge in Sup rem e C ou rt l aw ). T h u s th e maj o r i ty ’ s e x a mp l e o f a p r o b a t i o n s e r v i c e r e c o mm ending the incor re ct sentence to an unnoti ci ng j ud ge i s inapt. The l att ererrorco uld have bee n addresse d o n d i r e c tr e v i e w. The m aj or i ty furtherchar acte riz es thi s e rr ori n cal cul ati on o fa gui delin e a s “ l ess se ri ous” than o ne thatvi ol at es a st atut e o rr egul at i o n. Is us pec t th atthe de fen dan t si tting in pri son f ortwel ve years, r atherthan fi ftee n m onths because o fa conceded Guidel i nes m i scal cul ati o n wo ul d b egt o di ffer . F ew Gui del i ne s i nt er pr et at i o ns ha ve a s pr o no unce d a n e ffec t o n a s en te nc e th anthe car eero ffender desi gnati on. Does i t m ake a n y s ense to th e g oa ls o fj u st ice to d et er m in e t h atan im p ro p er ly ca l cul at ed se nt en ce tha t ex ce ed s t he s ta tu to r y maxi m um byo ne month i s a se r i o us e r r o rwor thy o fpo stc o nvi cti on r el i ef, b u t that an i m proper l y c al cul ate d err or th ate xc ee ds th e Gui del i ne s r an g e bye lev eny ea r s ( but is s ti l l w i th inth e s ta tu to ry m ax im u m ) is n ot ? T h atis why w e sa i d i n Palad i no thatev en wh er e a se ntence f al l s w i thi n the sente nci ng r ange that Congre ss had cre ate d fo r a defendant’s co nd uct, i t i s a m isc ar ria ge of20 N o. 11

- 1245 j usti ce t o gi ve a per son an i l l ega lse ntence that i ncre ase s hi s puni sh m en t, j us t as i t i s to c o nv i cta n innocent p er so n . U ni t e d S t a te s v. Pal adi no , 40 1 F
. 3d 471, 48 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 05)
. A nd i n the conte xt o f c on sidering prej ud i ce und era St r i ck l anda na l y si s, the S upr eme Co ur t ha s i nstr ucted that any am ou n t o f err an tly im p os ed ac tu al jail tim e m at te rs . Glov e rv. U ni t e d S ta tes , 5 31 U
. S. 19 8, 20 3 (20 01 ); U nite d States v. Seacott, 1 5 F .3d 1380, 1384 (“w e are una war e o fa ny o ne who w o ul d m aint ain tha t ev eno ne add i ti onalhouro fco nfin em ent, m uch l ess a day, o r w eeko fco nfinem ent, ‘ doesn’ t m att er . ’ ”) The i dea that S entencing Guidel i nes a re not“l aw s” that can be chal l en ge d in a § 2 255 m oti on was fi rs t fl oat ed i n th i s C i r c u i ti n Sc o tt v. U nited Sta tes , 99 7 F
. 2d 340, 34 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. In that cas e, we posed the i ssue as an unreso l ved questi on, but i t has since cr ept into our case law a s a n a c c ep te d p re m ise
. See, e . g., Wel ch , 60 4 F
. 3d at 412 ( ci ti ng Scottf orthe propos i ti on “ that devi ati ons fro m the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes gener al l y a re not c o g n i z ab l e o n a § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n . ” ) B u tth e S u p r e me Co ur th a s s t a t e d o nly tha ti fa n e r r o ri s n e i the rj ur i s dicti o na ln o rc o ns t i tut i o na l, i n o r de rt o b e c o g ni z ab l e o n c o l l a t e r a lr e v i e w, i tmu s tp r e s e n t“ e x c e p t i o n a lc i r c u mst an c es ” in w h ich a fu n d am en ta l d efe c t in h er en tly re su lts in a co m p l e t e m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice
. Se eH i l l v. U nited Sta tes , 36 8 U.S
. 42 4, 42 8 ( 1962 )
. T h e C ourthas not add re sse d w heth era Gu i del i nes c ase co uld r each s uch ex c ep tio n al lev els

. Id
. S ee also Su n B ear v . U nited Sta tes , 64 4 F .3d 70 0, 70 7 (8 th C ir. 20 11 ) (en ba n c ) (M ello y, J., di ss en ting ) ( no tingtha t th e i ss ue o fwh ethe rS en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes e rr or s a re co gn i zabl e in § 2 255 proce edi ngsN o. 11

- 1245 21 has no t be en deci ded by t h e Su p re m e Cour t o r the 8 th Ci r cui t)
. In Scott, w e surm i sed, w i thout deci ding, that Gu i del i nes e rrors sho uld notbe re dress abl e upon § 2255 re vie w be c au se , give n th eir st at u s , “[o]n e fu ll an d fair opportunity t o m ake ar gum ents u n d er the Gu i del i nes

— at sente nci ng and on dir ect appeal

— i s e nough. ” Id. at3 42
. W e kno w, ho wev er, tha t H awk ins di d no t an d coul d not hav e had one fulland f ai r opportunity t o m ak e h is a rg u m e n t u n d er th e G u id elin es be c au se h is ar gu m en t d id n otex istu n til th e Su p re m e C ou rtru led in C ha m bers

— afterhi s di re ct ap p eal had concl ud ed. I t was j ust s uch an i nter veni ng change i n l aw wh i ch co n vinced the S up re m e Cour t t o decl ar e am i scar ri ag e of j usti ce i n D avis , desp ite the Co ur t’ s l o nghi st o r y o fde ny i ng such a chara cter i zati on fornon- const i tuti onal, non-j uri sd ict ion al e rro rs . D avis , 41 7 U
. S. at34 6- 47. The D avis Cou r t concl ude d tha t puni sh m en t f o ra n a cttha t th e l a w d o e s n o tma k e c r i mi n a li n h e r e nt l y r e s u l t s i n a c o mple te m i scar ri age o fj u st i ce a nd pre sents exce pti onal ci rcum sta nces that j u st ify col l ate ra lr el i efunder § 2255
. Id. at 346- 47. Thus being punis hed a s a car eero ffender f oran a ct that the l aw does notco nsi der a pre re quis i te for career offend er statu s re s u lt s in a com p lete m iscarri age o fj usti ce a nd pre sents exce pti onalci rcum sta nces that j usti fy c ol l ate ra lr el i efunder § 2255
. As wi th D avis , a n int er ve nin gr eint er pr et at i o n o fthe l aw also m o ti va te d thi s co ur t i n Palad i no to find a m iscarri ag e ofj usti ce where the c hange coul d have influenced22 N o. 11

- 1245

A t ti m es w e sp ea k o f B ooker a nd C ham bers as i nt er ven i ng 3 ch an g es in the law

. It is a help ful sho rth an d for the m or e p recise descri ption w hich is that the law did not change , b u t r ather the S up r e m e Co ur t i nfor m e d the c ou r t s tha t the y had been m i s i nt er pre t i ng the l aw al l al ong. Pal a di no consoli dated se veral cas es for review and concl ud ed 4 t h a tth e p r o p e r p r o c e du r e f o r r e me dy i n g th e e r r o r wa s t o, “w hil e re tai ning j urisd ic ti on of the app eal, order a l im it ed rem and t o p erm itthe s ente ncing j ud ge to dete rm ine w hether (co n tin u ed ...) a j ud ge’ s ba sel i ne co nsi derat i on in sent enci ng. Palad i no , 3 40 1 F .3d at48 3. O f co u rs e, th e c h an ge in la w in Palad i no o c c u r r e d w hi l e th e c a s e wa s o n d i r e c tr e v i e w, buttha t di st i nc ti o n b l ur s when o ne c o ns i der s th e p ostu re of Palad i no . By the ti m e the Palad i no case s cam e be f or e thi s co urt, we had al re ady co ncl ud ed that B o o k er coul d not be appli ed re tr oac ti vel y. Thus a B o o k er er ro r th at o ccurs aftera j ud gm ent b eco m es finalcannot b e c o r r e c te d on p os t-c on vic tio n rev iew
. Palad i no, 40 1 F.3 d at48 1. C ha m bers , how ever is appli ed re tr oac ti vel y. M or eov er, because Palad i no i n v o l v e d p l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w, w e were i m ple m enti ng the ve rysa m e “ m i scar ri age o f j u s t i c e ” s t a n d a r d i n P a la di no as w e a re in t h is case

— that i s “ w hetherthe er ro r w oul d ser i ou sl y a ffect the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci al pr o c e e di ng s . ” Id. at48 1, ( ci ti ng Jo hn son v. U nited Sta tes , 52 0 U. S
. 4 61 , 4 66

- 67( 19 97 ) )
. In Palad i no , the m isc arri age ofj usti ce o ccurr ed beca use, atse ntenci ng, the j ud ges w er e under the m i sta ken unders tand i ng tha t the Guidel i ne s wer e m an dat o r y r athertha n a dvi so r y . Tha t er r an t 4N o. 11

- 1245 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 he w ou ld (i f re quired to r es ente nce) rei m pose hi s origi nal se ntence
. ” Pal a di no , 401 F. 3d at 484. bel i efaffecte d the j ud ge s’ thought pro cess es as they re vi ew ed the sente nci ng opti ons. This w as not an error th atco u ld h av e b ee n kn ow ab le a n d th u s c or re c ta b le un t i lthe S up r e me Co ur tde c i de d B o o k er . Th e s am e is tr ue i n thi s ca se

— a j udg e’ s er r an t be l i efabo utthe se ntencing l aw gr eat l y a ffec te d hi s thought pr oce ss. That er ro r c ou l d not hav e be en kno w n and thus co rr ecte d un ti lthe S upr eme Co ur t anno unc ed i ts de ci si o n in C h a mbers

. T he maj o r i tyt el l s us tha t th e er r o ri n Pa l a d i no was m o r e se r i o us a nd c o ns eque nti al, b ute r r an tly b el i ev i ng th atth e c ar ee r offe n d er en h an c em en t a p p lies w h en it d oes not i s a t l e a st as con seq ue nt ialto a defen d an t’s sen ten ce th an errantly beli eving t h at th e G uid eli ne s are m andator y when they ar e no t. In the s ol i d m aj or i ty of Palad i no r emands , the j udg e se nt en ce d the de fen dan t ex ac tly a s b efo re . Se e, e . g. , U nite d States v. D avis , 68 2 F
. 3d 5 9 6, 60 2 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Har r i s on , 35 5 Fe d . A p p x . 953 , 954 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nite d S ta te s v. Sebol t, 32 0 F ed . A p p x . 468 , 468 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. Ar m s t e ad, 309 Fe d . A p p x . 11, 11 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); Cole m an v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 309 Fed

. A p p x. 9, 10 (7th C ir. 2009); U nite d States v. Hall , 304 Fed

. A p p x . 4 5 1 , 452 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); but see U nited S t a tes v. Steel , 32 2 F ed. A pp x. 45 5, 456 ( 7th Cir, 20 09)
. Err antl y b el i eving tha t the car eer o ffen dere nha nc ementa ppl i es wheni t d oes not, o n the24 N o. 11

- 1245 othe r hand , cr eat es a hi gh p robabi l i ty ofge tting a m uchl o ng e rs e nt e nc e . F i r s t, b e c a us e the c a r e e ro ffender enhancem ent i m poses se ntences m ult i tudes hi gher than o ther w i se and seco nd , bec ause, as w e no ted abo ve, th e j udg e i s r equi r ed to b eg i n sente nc i ngwi tha Gu i del i nes c al cul ati on a nd ther ef or e wil lco m m ence h er se n te n c in g p ro c es s c on te m p lat in g a ran ge th atis l eagues hi gherthan i t s houl d be. I t m ade no differ ence to the Palad i no co urt that al lo f the s en te nc es i n tha t ca se wer e wi th i n the s ta tu to r y s en tencing r an ge and thus coul d have be en i m posed by th e j u d g e i n a n y e v e n t
. No rs h o u l d i ther e. J u s ta s we di d no t k no w i n Paladin o w h et h er th e jud ge s w ou ld ha ve g i ve n the s ame s en te nc e if th ey ha d kno wn ats en t e n c i n gth a tth e G u i d e l i n e s we r e me r e l y a d v i s o r y, we ca nno t k no w w he th er a j udg e woul d ha ve g i ve n the sam e s entence i fhe ha d known thatthe c ar eero ffender enhancem ent di d not a pp l y. In thi s ca se, we kn ow that the j ud ge w as hi ghl y influenced by the G u id elines r ange as he sa i d at the Palad i no r e man d: Over the last16 pl us ye ar s, the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssio n has pr om ulg ate d and honed the Guidel i nes t o achi eve thes e Congr ess i onalpurposes . Congr ess , as wel l, h as a ppr o ve d tho se Gui del i ne s an d ha s i nd icated i ts vi ew thatthe Gu i del i ne se ntences achi eve i ts pur i ty
. The r efo r e, the Co ur t wi l l, i n e xe r ci sing i ts disc re ti on, gi ve co ns i d e r a ble w eigh t to th o se G uid elines i n dete rm i ni ng an appropri ate se ntence f or thi s defendant.N o. 11

- 1245 25 A l so i n the exer ci se ofi ts d isc reti on, the Court w il l o n l y d e pa rt from tho se G uid elines in u nu sua l cases f or clearly iden tified p ersu asive reason s. T he de fend an t’s re ques tf o ra s e nt e nc e o ut s i de o fthe a dv i s o r y Gu i del i ne s i s j us t no t per su as i ve t o day

. Ev en though a departure is author i zed i n the case , Iwould choo se, an d Ido cho ose , notto depart, bec ause Ibel i eve depa r tu r e i s j us t no t war r an ted unde rthe f ac ts a nd ci rcum sta nces ofthi s ca se. A p p ell ate R
. at 12, T r. 10/28/05 at 34 (em p ha sis add ed ). This sounds m uch l i ke a forbi dd en pre sum pti on that th e G u id elin es se n te n c e is p ro p er , an d t h u s a rg u ab ly er ro r of an enti re l y differ ent sort
. S ee Gall , 55 2 U.S
. at50
. I n an y event, i t ce rt ai nl y dem onst ra tes how, eve n unde ra n a dvi so r y Gui del i nes s yst em, a mis ta k e i n the Gui del i ne s ca l cul ations a nc ho r ed th e j udg e to the hi gherr ange and vi rt u allyas sure d H aw ki ns a sente nce ten tim es greater th an one h e w ou ld h a v e received otherw ise . T h e m ajorit y n ot es th atth e G u id elin es rem ain i nfl ue nt i ala nd a sk s r he to r i ca l l y, “ho w i nfl ue nt i al ?” The answ erin thi s case i s cl ear . The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge “g[ a] ve consi derabl e wei ght t o the Gui del i nes, ” a nd not ed that he woul d o nl y “ depa r t” ( a wor d no l o ng err el ev an t post- B o o k er, and one that m i gh t in dica te an i napp ro pri ate l oya l ty to the Gui del i nes) “fro m tho se Gu i del i nes i n unusual case s. ” Ap pel l ate R. at12 , Tr. 10 /2 8/ 05 at 34. The m aj or i ty i ncl ud es quotati ons ( w i thout ci tat i on) to lan gu ag e im p lyin g th atatres en te n c in g th e jud ge w ou ld ha ve i m po se d the sa m e s en te nc e ev enwi th o utthe26 N o. 11

- 1245

c ar ee r offe n d er en h an c em en t. Su pra at6. But the quoted lan g u a g e com es from the d istri ct cou rt’s order fi ve years later on p ost-con viction revie w . Th e d istri ct cou rt j ud ge’s p os th oc rea so n in g in d en yin g c ol l a t e r al re vie w is su re ly not a r e l i ab l e i nd i c a t o ro fwh a th e wo ul d d o i fo r der ed to sente nce Haw ki ns de n ovo witho ut the car eer offender enhancem ent, part icu l ar l y g i ven the di sposi ti ve w ei ght the co urt appears to h ave gi ven the Guidel i nes at the t i m e o fthe P al adi no r em and. I t i s o ne thing f or th e j u d ge to sa y, fi ve yea rs l ate r, thathe woul d have sente nced H aw ki ns to 15 1 m onths re gar dle ss, and another f o rhi m t o a ctua l l y b eg i n wi tha 1 5- 21 month r an g e an d then deci de to i ncre ase the sente nce byano therdecade. Thi s c a s e , wh i c h d e ma n d s r e v e r s a l, wi l l o p e n no fl oo d gate s a s the m aj or ity fears

. I t invol ves, fi rs t, an un con tro v erted m istake of law by the district cou rt

— that i s decl arin g H aw ki ns a “car eero ffender” w hen he was not; se cond, an inabi l i ty to add re ss the error on di re ct re vi ew due to an inter venin g c h ange i n the l aw , wh i ch i s, th ird , a p p lica b le re tr oa c tiv ely

. Se eSu n Be ar, 64 4 F
. 3d at 712 ( M el l oy, J
. , di sse nti ng)
. Final l y w e n ot e again that th e appl i ca ti o n o fthe c ar ee ro ffen dere nha nc em ent tr ig g er s se nt en cingr an g es magn i tu des hi g he rtha n the unenhanced r ange. The maj o r i ty, it see m s, ha s no pr o bl em i g no r i ngthe error and a llo w in g H aw kins to be sen ten ced un d er a c a r e e ro ffe n d e rg u i d e l i ne th a t s h o u l d n o ta p p l y t o h i m, not i ng th at he i s a “h ar den ed cr i m ina l ” g ui lty ofa “vi ol ent a ssa ult

. ” An d w hi l e th e m ajor i ty i s qui ck to describe the “e scape” att em pt thattur ned vi ol ent whenN o. 11

- 1245 27 H aw ki ns was hi gh o n drugs, the m aj or i ty negl ects to i nfo rm the re ader that the o theres cape that qu al i fi ed H awk i ns a s a ca r ee ro ffen dero cc ur r ed when H awk i ns m er el y s i gned hi m sel fo ut o fa hal fw ay house and fa i l ed to re turn. But w e nee d not dw el lo n thes e f acts. W hether a cr i m e is a vi ol ent fel ony i s dete rm i ned by ho w the l aw defi ne s i t an d no t ho w an i ndi vi du al offen dermight h av e c om m itt ed it on a p ar tic u lar oc c as ion
. Bega y v . U nited Sta tes, 5 53 U. S
. 1 37, 1 41 ( 20 08 )
. M o r eo ve ra nd m or e co m pel l i ngl y, thi s deci si on wil ln ot applyo nl y t o H awk i ns , b uta l so t o the mil d- m anne r ed, no n-vi ole nt offender w ho panics and f ai l s to re turn to th e halfw ay hou se after a day a t w ork. Be cau se th is Cou rt has de term i ne d tha t ane r r o ri n c al cul at i ngthe c o r r ec t S en tencing Guidel i nes forsuch a walk

- aw ay offender i s no t a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce a nd nota cogni zabl e e rr or, ev en w her e the e r r o ri nc r e a s e s a n o ffe nd e r ’ s s e nt e nc e te n fold , ou r m ild -m an n er ed , no n -vio len t o ffen d er co u ld spend not one yea r i n pri son, but tw el ve and a hal fwh en nei therCongr ess , northe Se ntencing Com m i ssi on, nor l i kely e ven the di str i ct c ourtthatse ntence d h i m thi nks h e s h ou ld be th er e. SeeW yatt, 6 7 2 F
. 3 d a t 52 4
. Tha ts e e ms a p oo r u se of re so u rc es an d , m or e im p o r t a n t l y, a t er rib le m i scar ri age o fj usti ce. F o rthi s r ea so n, Iwoul d r ev er se the de ci si o n o fthe dist ri ct c ou rt a n d rem and to the di str i ct c ourtto al l ow M r. H aw kin s t o s ta n d be for e itw ith ou t t h e e rra n tly im p osed black m ark of a career offend er.

2- 7- 13