# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 32 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

St ev e L. W rig ht , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 8
Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 5, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and LOKEN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

In 20 06

, a jury co nv ic te d St ev e L. W rig ht

, Jr

., of fo ur te en fed eral of fen se s. A

nu m be r of th e cri m es to ok pl ace whe n W rig ht was a juv en il e; ot he rs oc cu rred aft er

h e r e a c he d ag e ei gh te en

. Co un t 1, th e of fen se of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e 50 gr a ms

or m or e of co cai ne ba se an d ot he r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es , en co m pa s s e d co nd uc t

un de rta ke n bo th be fo re an d aft er W rig ht ’s ei gh te en th bi rth da y

. In Feb ru ary 20 07

, th edi st ric t co ur t se nt en ced W rig ht to li fe in pr is on pl us 11 0 y ears

. Thi s ap pe al req ui res 1

us to ap pl y rece nt Su pr em e Co ur t cas es ad dr es si ng th e co ns t i t u t i on al it y of li fe

se nt en ces fo r juv en il es -- Grah am v. Fl or id a, 56 0 U.S. 48 (2 01 0)

, Mi ll er v. Alab am a,

56 7 U.S. 46 0 (2 01 2)

, an d Mo nt go m ery v. Lou is ia na , 13 6 S. Ct

. 71 8 (2 01 6)
-- to

W rig ht ’s cla im s fo r su cces si ve po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f fro m hi s s en te nc e.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um

s e nt en ce of li fe im

pr is on m en t fo r Co un t 7, th e of fen se of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng t h e

m ur de r o f a wit ne ss

. See 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (a)( 1) (C), (2 ), (3 )(A). Fo r se nt en ci ng

pu rp os es th e di st ric t co ur t gr ou pe d al l th e dr ug of fen se s (Co un ts 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12

, 13

,

an d 1 4) an d i m

po se d t he ad vi so ry

gu id el in es sen te nc e of li fe i m pr is on m en t. Co un t

1 was th e on ly co nv ic ti on in th is gr ou p fo r whi ch a li fe se nt en ce was st at ut or il y

a u t h o r iz ed

. Fo r th e fir earm of fen se s, as m an da te d by st at ut e, th e co ur t im po se d a

co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce of te n y ears fo r W rig ht ’s fir st co nv i c t io n un de r 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( c) (Co un t 4) , a nd ad di ti on al co ns ecu ti ve twen ty-fiv e-year se nt en ces fo r each

su bs e q u en t § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on (Co un ts 6, 9, 11

, an d 15 ). W rig ht co m m it te d th e

of fen se s i n C ou nt s 4 , 6, an d 9 be fo re h is eig ht een th bi rth da y

.

W e affi rm ed W rig ht ’s se nt en ce on di rect ap pe al

. Uni te d St at es v. W rig ht

, 53 6

F.3 d 81 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 55 6 U.S. 11 44 (2 0 0 9 )

. In May 20 10

, th e
di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n to va cat e or co rrec t th e se nt en ce;

W rig ht ap pe al ed an d we de ni ed a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. In Ju ne 20 13

, W rig ht

fil ed a su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n ba se d on Grah am , Mi ll er, an d Mo nt g o mer y. W e

gr an te d aut ho riz at io n t o fi le th e m ot io n. W rig ht v. Unit ed St at es , No. 13 -1 63 8 (8t h

Ci r. Feb . 5, 2 01 4) ; s ee § § 2 24 4( b) (3 ), 22 55 (h ).

The Hon or ab le Fern an do J. Gait an , Jr

., Uni t e d S t a t e s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-In Grah am , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he l d t h a t a juv en il e who ha s no t co m m it te d

ho m ic id e m ay no t be se nt en ced to li fe wit h o u t p a r o l e; he m us t in st ead ha ve “ so m e

m e a n i n g f u l op po rtu ni ty to ob ta in rel eas e ba se d on de m on st rat ed m at ur it y an d

reh ab il it at io n.” 56 0 U.S. at 74 -7 5. In Mi ll er, th e Co ur t he ld th at a juv en il e who ha s 2

co m m it te d ho m ic id e m ay be se nt en ced to li fe wit ho ut pa ro le bu t th e se nt en c e m us t

be ba se d on in di vi du al iz ed fact or s, in cl ud in g “ a juv en il e’s ‘less en ed cu lp ab il it y ’ an d

gr eat er ‘capac it y fo r ch an ge .’ ” 56 7 U.S. at 46 5 (q uo ti ng Grah am , 56 0 U.S. at 68

, 74 ).

In Mo nt go m ery, th e Co ur t he ld th at Mi ll er’s ho ld in g, li ke Grah am ’s, is ret ro act iv e on

co ll at eral rev ie w bec au se it est ab li sh ed a su bs ta nt iv e ru le . 13 6 S . Ct. at 73 2- 34

.

In th e di st ric t co ur t

, th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed th at W rig ht ’s m an da to ry li fe

se nt en ce fo r Co un t 7 vi ol at ed th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t as co ns tru ed in Mi ll er be cau se

th e un de rlyin g m

ur de r oc cu rred whe n W rig ht w a s a juv en il e. The di st ric t co ur t 3

va cat ed th e li fe se nt en ce, im po se d a se nt en ce of fif

te en y ears on Co un t 7, an d de ni ed

al l ot he r rel ie f. W rig ht ap pe al s, arg ui ng (i) he sh ou ld be res en te nc ed on Co un ts 1, 4,
6, an d 9 becau se so m e or al l of th e cri m in al act iv it y gi vi ng ris e to th os e co nv ic ti on s

oc cu rred be fo re hi s ei gh te en th bi rth da y ; an d (ii ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g a

co m pr eh en si ve res en te nc in g he ari ng be cau se hi s en ti re se nt e n c e w a s ta in te d by
Eig ht h Am en dm en t vi ol at io ns

. Rev ie win g th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of hi s se nt en ci ng de

no vo , we affi rm

. Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Je ffer so n, 81 6 F.3 d 10 16

, 10 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

As Co ng res s ab ol is he d pa ro le fo r fed eral of fen de rs in 19 84

, a fed eral li fe 2

se nt en ce is a sen te nc e o f li fe with ou t paro le

. Grah am , 56 0 U.S. at 10 9 (Tho m as , J.,
di ss en ti ng ).

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 3

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-3

-I.

A. W rig ht fir st arg ue s he is en ti tl ed to res en te nc in g on Co un t 1 un de r Grah am

an d Mil le r be cau se m an y co ns pi rat or act s in fu rth eran ce of the co ns pi racy oc cu rred

be fo re hi s ei gh te en th bi rth da y

. Eve n if th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue d pa st hi s ei gh te en th

bi rth da y an d pe rm it te d hi m to be tri ed as an ad ul t, W rig ht arg ue s, “ a se nt en ci ng co ur t

sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to co ns id er whe th er a li fe se nt en ce is ap pr op ria te fo r hi s ro le in

th e co ns pi racy ba se d up on th e rece nt Su pr em e Co ur t juri sp ru de nc e reco gn iz in g th at juv en il es sh ou ld be tre at ed di ffer en tl y .” Bu t Mil le r an d Graha m he ld on ly “ th at th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t fo rb id s a se nt en ci ng sc he m e th at man da te s li fe in pr is on wit ho ut

po ss ib il it y of pa ro le fo r ju v e n il e of fen de rs .” Mi ll er, 56 7 U.S. at 47 9 (em ph as is

ad de d)

. W rig ht ack no wled ge s th at th e li fe se nt en ce im po se d fo r Co un t 1 was no t

m an da te d by st at ut e. Howev er, he arg ue s, se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts in th e gu id el in es

th en in effe ct “ req ui red [th e di st ric t co ur t] to im po se a man d a t o r y li fe se nt en ce

. . . wit ho ut be in g al lo wed to co ns id er Mr. W rig ht ’s ag e at th e ti m e th e of fen se be ga n an d

th e o th er m it ig at in g q ua li ti es of you th .”

Thi s co nt en ti on is si m

pl y wro ng

. W rig ht was s e n te nc ed in 20 07

, whe n th e

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s were ad vi so ry

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t va ry do wnwar d fro m

th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of li fe pl us 11 0 y ears in pr is on , b ut it was au th or iz ed

to do so

. Mo nt go m ery he ld th at th e de ci si on in Mi ll er i s ret ro act iv e be cau se

4

m an da to ry li fe wit ho ut pa ro le is a su bs ta nt iv e ru le

, un li ke a no n- ret ro act iv e

pr oc ed u r a l ru le th at “ reg ul at es on ly th e m an ne r of de te rm in in g th e de fen da nt ’s

cu lp ab il it y .” 13 6 S. Ct

. at 73 3 (em ph as i s o mi t t ed ). W rig ht is arg ui ng th e di st ric t

By co nt ras t, in Uni te d St at es v. Je ffer so n, 81 6 F.3 d 10 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), th e 4

de fen da nt was se nt en ced to 60 0 m on th s i n p ris on un de r th en

- man da to ry gu id el in es fo r m ur de r a n d d r u g of

fen se s co m

m it te d whi le he was a juv en il e. App lying

Mo nt go m ery, th e di st ric t co ur t res en te nc ed th e de fen da nt to 60 0 m on th s “ un de r no wad vi so ry fed eral gu id el in es aft er a he ari ng in whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t care fu l l y an d
th or ou gh ly app li ed th e te ach in g o f . . . Mil le r.” Id . at 1 01 9.

-4

-co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ta ke n hi s y ou th in to acco un t un de r Mi ll er in se nt en ci ng hi m un de r

C o u n t 1

. Thi s ap pe ars to be an arg um en t fo r a no n- ret ro act iv e pr oc ed ur al ru l e

reg ul at in g th e m an ne r of de te rm in in g cu lp ab il it y

. Th e is su e is no t th at si m pl e,
ho wev er, be cau se in ba nn in g m an da to ry li fe wit ho ut pa ro le fo r juv en il es who co m m it

ho m ic id e of

fen se s, Mi ll er pr es cri be d a he ari ng pr o c e d u re ne ed ed to se pa rat e th os e
who m ay be se nt en ced to li fe wit ho ut pa ro le
-- “ th e rare st of juv en il e of fen de rs , th os e

w h o se cri m es refl ect pe rm an en t in co rri gi bi li ty”
-- an d th e Co ur t in Mo nt go mer y
d e s c r ib ed th is as “ a pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en t ne ces sa ry to im pl em en t [Mi ll er’s

ret ro act iv e] su bs ta nt iv e gu aran te e.” 13 6 S. Ct

. at 73 4

. B u t w e co nc lu de W rig ht ’s

arg um en t do es no t fal l wit hi n th is su bs ta nt iv e gu aran te e. W rig ht was no t se nt en ced

on Co un t 1 as a juv en il e of fen de r. He was se nt en ced fo r co ns pi rat or ia l co nd uc t th at

ex te nd ed well in to hi s ad ul t y ears un de r an ad vi so ry gu id el in es reg im e th at al lo wed

th e di st r i c t c o u r t to co ns id er hi s earl y pa rti ci pa ti on as a juv en il e, as well as ot he r
rel ev an t m it ig at in g fact or s. Thu s, th e pr oc ed ur al el em en t of th e ne w su bs ta nt iv e ru le

of co ns ti tu ti on al la w m ad e ret ro act iv e in Mo nt go m ery do es no t ap pl y , an d su cces si ve

ha be as rel ie f on th is cla im was p ro pe rly den ie d. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A). 5

B. W rig ht fu rth er a rg ue s th at th e co ns ecu ti ve m an da to ry te rm -o f-y ears

se nt en ces im

po se d on Co un ts 4, 6, an d 9 (to ta l i ng si xt y y ears ) vi ol at ed th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t as co ns tru ed in Grah am be cau se th ey were an “ effe ct iv e li fe se nt en ce,”

an d W rig ht was a juv en il e whe n he co m m it te d th e un de rlyin g no n- ho m ic id e cri m es

. As Ju dg e Co ll ot on no te d, co nc ur rin g in th e gr an t of au t h o r i zat io n to fil e th e

W rig ht was tri ed an d pu ni sh ed as an ad ul t be cau s e he pa rti ci pa te d in th e 5

co ns pi racy aft er reac hi ng th e ag e of m ajor it y

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Gjon aj, 86 1
F.2 d 14 3, 14 4 (6 th Ci r. 19 88 ). The Eig ht h A men d men t do es no t pr oh ib it se nt en ce

en ha nc em en ts b a se d on cri m es co m m it te d whe n an ad ul t of

fen de r was a juv en il e. Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt

, 61 0 F.3 d 10 09

, 10 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Tell in gl y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Grah am ne it he r di sc us se d no r pr es en te d st at is ti cs de al in g wit h li fe-wi th ou tpa ro le se nt en ces im

po se d fo r no n- ho m ic id e co ns pi ra cy of fe nse s be gin nin g be fo re an d

ex te nd in g a fte r a co ns pi rat or ’s eig ht een th bi rth da y

.

-5

-su cces si ve § 22 55 mo t io n, “ [i]t is an op en qu es ti on whe th er Grah am sh ou ld be

ex te nd ed to pr oh ib it th e im po si ti on of a le ng th y te rm of y ears on a juv en il e who di d

no t co m m it ho m ic id e.” W rig ht

, No. 13 -1 63 8, Ju dg m en t at 4, ci ti ng Grah am , 56 0 U.S.

at 12 4 (Ali to

, J., di ss en ti ng ). Thu s, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at W rig ht is no t en ti tl ed

to s u c c e s s i ve ha be as rel ie f on th is cl ai m be cau se it is ou ts id e th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

de ci si on in Grah am , as th e Si xt h Ci rcu it he ld in Bu nc h v. Sm it h, 68 5 F.3 d 54 6, 55 1-

53 (6 th Ci r. 20 1 2)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t’s di sc us si on of ret ro act iv it y in th e m or e

rece nt Mo nt go m ery de ci si on m ay al te r th e req ui red an al y si s, bu t we ne ed no t de ci de

th e is su e in th is cas e be cau se an y erro r was ha rm le ss

. W e h av e de ni ed W rig ht

su cces si ve ha be as rel ie f fro m th e li fe se nt en ce im po se d on Co un t 1, an d fed eral

se nt en ces of li fe an d li fe pl us 60 y ears “ co m e to th e sa m e th in g.’” Uni te d St at es v.

Bo ur , 80 4 F .3d 88 0, 8 86 (7t h C ir. 2 01 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

II

.

W rig ht arg ue s th at

, be cau se th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t req ui red res en te nc in g on

Co un t 7, an d be cau se he al le ge d Eig ht h Am en dm en t erro rs in th e se nt en ces im po se d

on Co un ts 1, 4, 6, an d 9, th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t gr an ti ng hi m a “ co m pr eh en si ve

res en te nc in g he ari ng

. ” A f te r we au th or iz ed th is su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n, th e
di st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r va cat in g th e se nt e n c e o n Co un t 7. The co ur t no te d
Eig ht h Ci rcu it de ci si on s reco gn iz in g a di st ric t co ur t’s a u t h o r i t y to re-e va lu at e a

“ se nt en ce pa ck ag e” whe n on e or m or e co un ts m us t be res en te nc ed an d st at ed th at th e

sc op e of W rig ht ’s res en te nc in g wou ld be de te rm in ed at a res en te nc in g he ari ng

. The

pa rti es th en br ie fed whe th er W rig ht was en ti tl ed to res en te nc in g on an y ot he r co un ts

. Aft e r c o ns id eri ng th es e su bm is si on s, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at W rig ht was on ly

en ti tl ed to res en te nc in g o n C ou nt 7 an d d en ie d fu rth er re li ef wi th ou t a h eari ng

.

Wr i g h t c i te s no au th or it y in su pp or t of th is cl ai m

. In so -cal le d “ se nt en ci n g

pa ck ag e cas es ,” whe re th e de fen da nt su cces sf ul ly ch al le ng es on e co un t of a m ul ti

co un t co nv ic ti on , “ tri al co ur ts ha ve im po se d a se nt en ce on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

-6

-lo ng er th an th e se nt en ce or ig in al ly im po se d on th os e pa rti cu la r co un ts

, bu t y ie ld in g

an ag gr eg at e se nt en ce no lo ng er th an th e ag gr eg at e se nt en ce i n i ti al ly im po se d.”

Green la w v. Uni te d St at es , 55 4 U.S. 23 7, 25 3 (2 00 8) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. McArt hu r,

85 0 F.3 d 92 5, 94 2- 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Tha t dynam ic is ob vi ou sl y in ap pl ic ab le he re.

Ano th er si tu at io n in whi ch th e m ul ti -co un t res en te nc in g is su e ari se s is il lu st rat ed by

Uni te d S ta te s v . Green e, 99 5 F .2d 79 3, 8 01 (8t h Ci r. 19 93 ), whe re we re ve rs ed on e

co un t of co nv ic ti on an d rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g on al l co un ts be cau se “ it [was ] no t

im po ss ib le th at th e tri al co ur t m ig ht ha ve sen te nc ed Mr. Gree ne at a di ffer en t po in t

in th e ap pl ic ab le [m an da to ry gu id el in es ] ran ge ha d it no t co ns id ered th e [rev ers ed ]

co nv ic ti on .” Bu t he re, we ha ve up he ld th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e te rm in at io n th at th e

se nt en ce of li fe pl us 60 y ears i mp o s e d o n Co un ts 1, 4, 6, an d 9 di d no t vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

pr oc ed ur al di sc ret io n in de nyin g a m or e “ co m pr eh en si ve ” res en te nc in g he ari ng , no r

it s su bs ta nt iv e di sc ret io n in de nyin g fu rth er su cces si ve § 22 55 rel ie f aft er va cat in g th e
mand at or y li fe se nt en ce on Co un t 7 an d res en te nc in g W rig ht to a 15 -y ea r t e r m o f

im pr is on m en t o n t ha t Co un t.

Fo ll owi ng su bm is si on of th is ap pe al

, W rig ht fil ed a pr o se m ot io n fo r le av e to

fil e a su pp le m en ta l br ie f ad dr es si ng th ree is su es

. One was ad dr es se d in th e br ie f fil ed
by hi s co un se l on ap pe al ; th e ot he r two pr es en t ne w arg um en ts th at wou ld no t pr ov id e

a ba si s fo r su cces si ve ha be as re l i e f

. Acco rd in gl y , we de ny th e pr o se m ot io n an d

affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-