### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-1149
J AM E S B

. H AN S O N

, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

U NI T E D S TAT E S O F A M E RI C A , Respondent-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the

S o uthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s
. No . 3 :1 6 -cv -0 0 4 28 -JPG — J. Phil Gilbe rt, Judg e.

A RGUE D S E PT E MB E R 4, 2019

— D E C I D E D O C T OB E R 23, 2019

Befor e W O OD, Ch ief Judge, and B AU E R and H AMI L T O N , Circuit Judges. B AU E R , C i rc u i t Ju d

ge
. F o l l owi ng a s i x-y ear inv esti gati on into
a methamphetamine oper ati on, James Hanson w as indi cted on May 5 , 2009, w i th conspi r acy to m an u f a c tur e, di str i bute, and possess wi th i n tent to di str ibute meth a m p h e tamine in excess of 5 0 0 gr ams. The Gov er nment establi s h ed Hanson’s thr ee2 No. 18-1149
pr i or dr u g offenses and Kentucky felony thi rd-degr ee r esi denti al bur glar y conv i cti on. On D e cember 10, 2009, H anson pleaded gui lty pur suant to a p lea agr eement. Per the agr eement, the gov er nment li sted o n l y one pr i or felony dr ug
conv i cti on under 21 U.S .C. § 851, instead of all thr ee potenti ally quali fyi n g conv i cti on s , and r eli ed in par t on H anson’s p r i or bur glar y conv i cti on for a lesser r ecommended s e n tencing
r a n ge under the Gui delines. In the Pr esentence Inv e s t i g ati on Repor t (“PS R”), the Pr obati on Offi cer calculated Hanson’s total offense lev el as 34, wi th a c r i minal hi s tor y of VI, for a Sentencing Gui delines r ange of 262 to 327 months. U

. S .S .G. § 4B1.1(c)(3). After conducting
a sentencin g hear ing wher e the di str i ct cour t h ear d fr om both par ti es, the d i s tr i c t cour t adopted the PS R, sentencing H anson to 262 months i n pr i son follow ed by ten y ear s of s u per v i sed

r elease. On a p p eal, Hanson challenges the di str i ct cour t’s deni al o f his collater al challenge to hi s sentence under 28 U.S .C. § 2255. W

e conclude that the di str i c t cour t did n ot commi t any r ev er si

ble er r or s and affi r m. DISCUSSION H a n s o n a r gues that the di str i c t cour t er red when i t in c l u d e d hi s thi r d-degr ee b ur glar y as a cr i me of v i olence, enhancing Hanson’s status to a car eer offender

. W e r ev i ew th e d i s tr i ct
c our t’s legal conclusi ons de novo
. Hrobowski v
. United Sta t e s , 904 F .3d 566, 569 (7th Ci r . 2018). P ostconv i cti on sentences may be changed i f the sentence “w as i mposed i n v i olati on of the Consti tuti on or laws of the Uni ted S tates, or [i f ] the cour t w as wi thout j ur i s d i c t io n to i mpose such sentence, or [i f ] the sentence w as in excess of theNo. 18-1149 3
maxi mum author i zed by law

... .” 28 U.S .C. § 2255(a). “[N]ot
ev er y er r or i s cor r i gible in a post-conv i cti on pr oceedi ng, ev en i f the er r or i s not har mless.” Hawkins v
. United States , 706 F .3d 820, 823 ( 7th Ci r
. 2013). Ev en er r or s that ar e not har mless may not be cogni z able undera § 2255 pr oceedi ng. Id. W e h av e held that “ reli ef u nder § 2255 i s av ai l able ‘only in extr aor dinar y si tuati ons, such as an er r or o f consti tuti onal or j ur i sdi cti onal magni tude or wher e a fundamental defect has
occur r ed whi ch r esults in a complete mi scar ri age of j ustic e.’” United States v
. Co l e m an , 763 F .3d 7 06, 708 (7th Ci r
. 2 014) (quoti n g Blake v
. United States , 723 F .3d 870, 878–79 (7th Ci r
. 2013)). A defendant may fi le a § 2255 moti o n w ithi n one y ear of the latest of four dates, including the d ate of final j udgment and “the date on whi ch the ri ght asser ted w as initi ally r ecogni zed b y the S upr eme Cour t, i f that r i ght has bee n newly

r ecogni zed by the S up r eme Cour t and made r etr oacti v ely appli cable to cases on collater al r ev i ew .” 2 8 U.S .C. § § 2 2 55(f )(1) and (3). Under § 2255(f )(1), a defendant has one y ear fr om the final j udgment to f il e a § 2255 moti on. Thi s cour t di smi ssed Hanson’s appeal on Augus t 25, 2010. The conv i cti on became final o n N ov ember 23, 2010. Hanson fai led to fi le a § 2255 moti on wi thi n one y ear
. The s tatute of li mi tati ons to fi le a § 2255 moti on for Hanson’s final conv i cti on ended on Nov ember 23, 2011. Ther efor e, Hanson’s moti on under § 2255(f )(1) i s unti mely

. Alter n ati v ely

, Hanson ar gues the S upr eme Cour t in Mathis

r ecogni zed a new r i ght on June 23, 2016, a llowing hi m to fi l e a § 2255 moti on by June 23, 2017. How ev er , the S upr eme Cour t4 No. 18-1149
stated i n Mat h i s that the r ules being appli ed came fr om pr ecedent. M a this v. United States , 136 S . Ct. 2243 (2016). “Our pr ecedents make thi s a s t r ai ghtfor w ar d case. For mor e than 25 y ear s, we hav e r epeatedly m a de clear that app l ic a t ion of ACC A inv olv es, a nd inv olv es only , compar ing elements.” Id. at 2257. Instead, the S up r eme Cour t di sti n gui shed betw een “elements” and “means,” wher e “elements” ar e “consti tuent p ar ts” of a c r i me a nd “ means” a r e “v ar i ous factual w ays o f commi tti ng some component of the offense.” Id. a t 2 249. Hanson has fai led to show that the Supr e me C our t in Mathis i ntended to cr eate a new r ule upon whi ch t h e s t a tute of li m i tati ons may r un. W e br i efly addr ess Hanson’s letter to the c o u r t, whi ch confuses the G ov er nment’s a r gument that Mathis m ust be d e c lar ed r etr oacti v e “by the Supreme Court .” Rather , th e Gov er nment states in i ts br i ef: “[n]ev er theless, the measur ing per i od begi ns when the S upr eme Cour t declar es a new r i ght, not when the c our ts acknowledge the r i ght to be r etr oacti v e.” W e under stand the Gov er nment’s posi ti on as not r equi r ing the

r i ght to b e d eclar ed r etr oacti v e by the S upr eme Cour t, b ut
r a ther the S upr eme Cour t must declar e a n ew r i ght for the
cour ts to apply r etr oacti v i ty

. Hanson ar gues the di str i ct cour t mi sappli ed the c ar eer offender enhancement underthe adv i sor y Gui delines, r esulti ng in a “mi s car ri a ge of j usti ce.” S entencing er r or s that can be

r a i sed on di r ect a ppeal ar e gener ally not cogni zable u pon collater al r ev i ew

. Cogni zable sent e ncing er r or s include sentencin g deci s i ons r ender ed u nlawful by a cla r i fi c a t i o n in the law or sentencin g deci si ons that exceed the statutor y maxi

-No. 18-1149 5

mum. See Narvaez v
. United States , 674 F

. 3d 621, 627 (7th Ci r
. 2011) (gr anti ng r eli ef under t he p r e- Booker mandator y gui del in e s ) ; and see W

elch v
. United States , 604 F .3d 408, 412–13 (7th Ci r
. 2010) (gr anti ng r eli ef for er r or s in applyi ng t he statutor y enhancements underthe Ar med Cr i minal Car eer Act). The Gui delin es establi sh a car eer offender as a defendant who i s “at least ei ghteen y ear s old at the ti me he commi tted the offense of conv i cti on; the offense of conv i cti on must b e a felony t h a t is ei ther a cr i m e of v i olence or a contr olled substanc e offense; and the defendant must hav e at l east tw o p r i or felony
conv i cti ons of ei ther a cr i me of vi olence or a contr olled substance offense.” U.S .S .G. § 4B1.1(a). A j udge uses adv i sor y Gui delines to deter mine w h ether the sentencing r a nge i s
con si stent wi th the appr opr i ate consi der ati ons. 18 U.S

. C. § 3 553(a). Nonetheless, “ t h e j u dge may n ot ev en presume that

a sentence wi thin the a ppli cable Gui delines r a nge w ould be pr oper
. [ The j udge] must fi rst deter m ine whethe r
... t he sentencin g consi der ati ons [comply wi th] 1 8 U.S .C. § 3553(a), and i f

... not [the j ud g e ] m a y n o t i mpose i t ev en though i t i s wi thi n the appli c able gui delines r ang e
. ” Hawkins v
. United States , 706 F .3d at 822. A c hange i n the law r ev oki ng the s tatus under the nowadv i sor y Gui delines of “cr i me of v i olence” fr o m a p r i or
conv i cti on i s not cogni zable upon collater al r ev i ew
. Coleman , 763 F .3 d a t 7 08–09. Her e, the gov er nment concedes that the Kentucky thi rd-degr ee bur g l ar y statute does not inher ently i nv olv e “pur poseful, v i olent, and aggr essi v e c o n duct” of a “cr i me of vi olence” as par t of the car eer offender desi gnati on. But the di str i ct cour t di d n ot r ely solely , or ev en pr inci p ally

, on6 No. 18-1149
the adv i sor y Gui delines. Instead, i t refer enced multi ple consi der a ti o n s i n i mposing Hanson’s sentence, including the adv i sor y Guid e l in e s, the lengthy PS R, the ar gument of the par ti es, and factor s set for th i n § 3553(a). Whi le thi s case di r ectly inv o lv es, and i s contr olled by , our pr ecedent on § 2255, our r ecent d eci si on in Chazen r egar ding a § 2241 moti on i s a ptly di sti n g u is h a ble h er e. In Chazen , w e di scussed the statutor y enhancement of the Ar m ed Car eer Cr i m i nal Act, whi ch mandated a m ini mu m 1 5

- y ear sentence for a per s on wi th thr ee or m or e pr i or conv i cti ons for a “v i olent felony” or “ser i ous d r u g offense.” Chazen v
. Marske, 938 F .3d 851, 853 (7th Ci r
. 2019) ( ci ti ng 18 U.S .C. § 924(e)(1)). Chazen sought r eli ef under § 2241, clai ming the di str i ct cour t i m pr oper ly sentenced hi m to the enh anced mini mum u nder the statute d u e to h i s pr i or bur glar y conv i cti ons, whi ch w er e not “v i olent feloni es.” W

e found that “Mathis c an pr ov i de the basi s for [a] § 2241 peti ti on
... under the Ar med Car eer Cr i minal Act” b e ca u se the sentence at i s sue mandated a min i mum sentence of incar cer ati on. Chazen , 938 F

. 3d at 862. W h il e Mathis may pr ov i de a b asi s for aw ar ding habea s
r eli ef under28 U.S .C. § 2241 fr om an Ar m ed Car eer Cr i minal Act sentence as i n Chazen , the re a s o n in g of Chazen does not extend to pr o v id in g habeas r eli ef fr om an a ppli cati on of the adv i sor y Gui delin es
. H e r e, the d i s tr i ct c our t sentenced H anson not wi th mandator y mini mums, but wi th combined c onsi der

ati ons fr o m the adv i sor y Gui delines and the appr opr i ate factor s. Whi le the Ar m ed Car eer Cr im i n a l Act requi r es a mandator y mini mum of 15 y ear s, a j udge must independently deter mine the sentence based on 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a) factor s andNo. 18-1149 7
whether the car eer offender enhancement appli es. Th er ef o r e, Chazen does not affor d r eli ef to Hanson. Hanson clai ms the di str i ct cour t commi tted a n ar guable
er r or i n applyi ng the adv i sor y Gui delin es that cr eated a
m i scar r i age of justi ce. Hawkins and Coleman ar e contr ol l i n g her e. As in Hawkins , the sentence i mposed her e w as based on adv i sor y Gui delin es, not mandat o r y Gui delines or statutor y mini m ums, as i n Chazen and cases pr i or to Booker

. An er r or that may h a v e oc c u r r ed i n calculating the Gui delin es r ange does not consti tute a “mi scar r i age of j usti ce” when the “sentence i s
w ell be l o w the cei l i ng i mposed by Congr ess.” Coleman , 763 F .3d at 708 (ci ti n g Hawkins , 706 F .3d at 824–25). T he d i ffer ence betw een the Gui delines r ange wi th t he bur glar y compar ed to the r ange wi thout the bur glar y i s moot, because the cour t c o u l d hav e easi ly r eli ed on the addi ti onal dr ug offenses or other § 3553 f a ctor s. The possi bi li t y of a di ffer ent sentence i n li ght of the er r or i s not enough to di stingui s h thi s case fr om Hawkins or Coleman

. Ther e i s no r eason to beli ev e tha t the di str i ct c our t w ould be inclined to r ev i se the sentence based solely on the r emov al of the thir d-degr ee Kentucky bur glar y char ge, cons id e r ing the addi ti onal dr ug
o f fenses. Ther efor e, Hanson di d not suffer a “mi s car r i age o f j usti ce” and hi s clai m for c ollater al r eli ef i s deni ed. CONCLUSION W e AFFIRM the dis tr i ct cour t’s deni al of H anson’s § 2255 moti on i n fav or of r espondent-appellee.