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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 20 99

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

Jo se ph R. Groo m s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

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: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 14
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 21 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Jo se ph Gro om s pl ed gu il ty to po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e c o cai ne ,
po ss es s io n wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, an d fel on in po ss es si on of

fir earm s. The di s t r ic t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Gro om s was su bjec t to en ha nc ed 1

The Hon or ab le D e a n Wh ip pl e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.s e n t e n ci ng un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ),

be cau se of th ree pr io r vi ol en t fel on y co nv ic ti on s, in cl ud in g a Kan sa s co nv ic ti on fo r

in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r. It se nt en ced Gro om s to se rv e co nc ur ren t 18 8 m on th te rm s

on each co un t, an d Gro o ms ap pe al ed hi s co nv ic ti on s. W hi le th e ap pe al s were

pe nd in g, th e Su pr em e Co ur t cl ari fie d th e de fin it io n of a vi ol en t fel on y un de r § 92 4( e)

in Beg ay v. Uni te d St at es , 55 3 U.S. 13 7 (2 00 8)

. Gro om s no w br in gs a pr o se m ot io n

to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t hi s se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, as se rti ng th at hi s

in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on was n ot a vi ol en t fe lo ny as d efi ne d i n Beg ay

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n, an d Gro om s ap pe al s. W e affi rm fo r th e reas on s

st at ed

.

Gro om s was arre st ed on Ja nu ary 25

, 20 05 aft er po li ce rece iv ed a rep or t th at he

ha d th reat en ed to ge t a gu n fro m hi s tru ck an d sh oo t a se cu rit y em pl oyee at a Kan sa s
Ci ty ni gh t cl ub

. Po li ce se arch ed hi s ve hi cl e an d di sc ov ered two ha nd gu ns , qu an ti ti es

of co cai ne an d m et ha m

ph et am in e, an d a di gi ta l sc al e. Gro oms t o l d p ol ic e th at th e

gu ns were no t hi s, ex pl ai ni ng th at whe n he was 17 y ears ol d he ha d acci de nt al ly sh ot

an d ki ll ed hi s be st fri en d an d ha d be en un co m fo rta bl e aro un d gu ns ev er si nc e. Afte r

hi s m ot io n to su pp res s th e ev id en ce ta ke n fro m hi s tru ck w as de ni ed

, Gro om s pl ed

gu il ty to o ne co un t ea ch of f el on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 )

an d 92 4( e)(1 ), po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne , an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt

to di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e, 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C)

.

The pre se nt en ce re po rt f

or Groo m s ca lc ul at ed hi s t ot al off en se lev el to be 25

an d hi s cri m in al hi st or y to be VI, a n d s t a t e d t ha t he was su bjec t to an arm ed care er
cri m in al en h a n c e men t un de r § 92 4( e) an d U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4

. The reco m m en de d

en ha nc em en t was ba se d on th ree pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fel on ie s, in cl ud in g a Sep te m be r 19 93 co nv ic ti on fo r in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r. Co m bi ne d wit h a fu rth er

en ha nc em en t fo r ha vi ng po ss es se d fi re ar m s in co nn ect io n wit h a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

of fen se , hi s res ul t i n g of

fen se le ve l was 34

. Afte r su bt ract in g th ree le ve ls fo r

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y an d ti m el y no ti c e o f i n t en t to pl ead gu il ty, th e fin al

-2

-of

fen se le ve l fo r Gro om s was 31

, res ul ti ng in a se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge of 18 8 to

23 5 m on th s.

Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Gro om s to ld th e co ur t th at whi le he ag reed th at

two of hi s pr io r fel on ie s w o u ld su pp or t th e cat eg or y of arm ed care er cri m in al

, hi s
inv olu nta ry m an sla ught er co nv ic ti on wou ld no t be cau se th e sh oo ti ng w as an ac ci de nt.

The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t in di cat ed th at Gro om s ha d be en 17 y ears ol d at

th e ti m e of th e m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on an d th at co ur t reco rd s sh owe d th e ki ll in g was

un in te nt io na l. Non et he le ss , Gro om s' at to rn ey di d no t ob ject to th e pr es en te nc e rep or t

or th e en ha nc ed gu id el in e ran ge

. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e rep or t's fin di ng s in

Feb ru ary 20 07 an d sen te nc ed Gro om s to th ree con cu rren t 18 8 m on th te rm s, on e fo r
each of t he fir earm

an d d ru g p os se ss io n c ou nt s.

Gro om s fil ed an ap pe al th ro ug h ne w co un se l, ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on , bu t

no t hi s se nt en ce, on gr ou nd s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d erre d in ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce

ta ke n fro m hi s ve hi cl e. W e a f f irmed hi s co nv ic ti on in Nov em be r 20 07

. The

fo ll owi ng Apr il th e Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed it s de ci si on in Beg ay , cl ar i f yi n g t he

de fin it io n of a vi ol en t fel on y un de r § 92 4( e). 55 3 U.S. 13 7 (2 00 8)

. The ne xt m on th

t h e Su pr em e Co ur t rev ers ed Gro om s' co nv ic ti on , rem an di ng hi s cas e fo r fu rth e r

co ns id erat io n of th e la wfu ln es s of hi s ve hi cl e se arch in li gh t of Ariz on a v. Gan t, 55 6

U.S. 33 2 (2 00 9)

. Gro om s v. Uni te d S t a te s, 55 6 U.S. 12 31 (2 00 9)

. W e reo pe ne d

Gro om s' cas e in Ja nu ary 20 10 an d ord ered th e pa rti es to fil e su pp le m en ta l bri efs on

th e v e h i c l e s earc h is su e. Gro om s co m pl ie d, fil in g a br ie f whi ch ag ai n di d no t

ch al le ng e hi s se nt en ce an d m ad e no m en ti on of Beg ay

. W e reaf fir m ed G ro om s'

co nv ic ti on in Apr il 20 10

, an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ni ed c e rti or ari on Octo be r 12

, 20 10 an d re he ari ng on Jan ua ry 18 , 20 11

.

Gro om s t he n fi le d t hi s p ro se m ot io n o n Oct ob er 3 , 20 11 to va cat e, se t as id e,

or co rrec t hi s se nt en ce un de r § 2 2 5 5. He arg ue s th at hi s in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r

co nv ic ti on do es no t qu al ify as a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e Su pr em e Co ur t's an al y si s in

-3

-Beg ay

. He as s e r t s th at hi s 18 8 m on th se nt en ce fo r po ss es si on of fir earm s is th us

il le ga l. The di st ric t c ou rt de ni ed hi s m ot io n, an d Gro om s ap pe al s. W e rev ie w de

no vo th e de ni al of a § 2 25 5 m ot io n a nd rev ie w un de rlyin g fi nd in gs of f act for cle ar

erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 71 5 F.3 d 21 5, 22 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Sect io n 22 55 en ti tl es

a fed eral pr is on er to rel ie f if hi s "s en te nc e was im po se d in vi ol at io n o f t he

Co ns t i t u t i o n o r l aws of th e Uni te d St at es , or

. . . was in ex ces s of th e m ax im um

au th or iz ed by la w." Kin g v. Uni te d St at es , 59 5 F.3 d 84 4, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( a)).

A pr el im in ary q ue st io n is whe th er Gro om s pr oc ed ur al ly d efau lt ed hi s Beg ay
cl ai m

. A pr is on er who fai ls to rai se a cl ai m on di rect ap pe al ge ne ral ly m ay no t rai se

it in a § 22 55 m ot io n. Je nn in gs v

. U n i t ed St at es , 69 6 F.3 d 75 9, 76 2– 63 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). An ex cep ti on to th is ru le ex is ts whe n "n ew la w ha s be en m ad e si nc e th e tri al

an d ap p e a l

. " D a v i s v. Uni te d St at es , 41 7 U.S. 33 3, 34 2 (1 97 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s an d el li ps is om it te d)

. Pro ced ur al de fau lt wil l be ex cu se d if th e pe ti ti on er
sh ows cau se an d pr ejud ic e or m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. W in fie ld v. Ro p e r , 4 6 0 F.3 d

10 26

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Gro om s fir st arg ue s th at hi s fai lu re to rai se th is cl ai m on
di rect ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e ne w la w ex cep ti on be cau se B e g ay was de ci de d whi le

hi s ap pe al was s ti ll pe nd in g. W hi le th at is tru e, Gro om s' a pp eal ha d b een reo pe ne d

fo r ne w br ie fin g aft er th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha d de ci de d Beg ay an d rem an de d hi s cas e.

Tha t ga ve Gro om s a ne w pr oc ed ur al op po rtu ni ty to rai se hi s cl ai m

. See Ree d v. Ro ss , 4 68 U.S. 1, 14 (1 98 4)

. He fai le d to so , an d we th eref or e co nc lu d e t h a t G r o o ms

pr oc ed ur al ly defau lt ed it

.

Gro om s ne xt a r g ue s th at he ha d cau se fo r hi s de fau lt be cau se hi s ap pe ll at e

co un se l was un aware of th e ex is te nc e an d rele va nc e of Beg ay at th e ti m e hi s ap pe al

was reo pe ne d fo r ne w br ie fin g. He st at es th at he on ly be cam e aware of Beg ay 's

rel ev an ce whi le he was pr ep ari ng th e pr o se m ot io n no w be fo re th e co ur t. Cau se m ay
be sa ti sf ie d when a "cl ai m is so no ve l th at it s leg al ba si s is no t reas on ab ly av ai la bl e

to co un se l" at th e ti m e of ap pe al

. Ree d, 46 8 U.S. at 16

. In Ree d, th e Co ur t ex cu se d

-4

-a pr is on er's pr oc ed ur al de fau lt on a co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m be cau se it s pr eced en t at th e

ti m e of hi s de fau lt wou ld no t ha ve su pp or te d it ; on ly a si ng le ci rcu it ha d. Id

. at 18

. In co nt ras t, Beg ay was la w at th e ti m e of Gro om s' de fau lt

, an d at th e ti m e hi s

a t t o r ne y fil ed su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g, th ree ot he r ci rcu it s ha d in te rp ret ed Beg ay t o

ex cl ud e of

fen se s wi t h t he m en s rea of reck le ss ne ss fro m th e cat eg or y of vi ol en t

fel on ie s. Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a, 63 8 F.3 d 89 5, 90 1 (8 Ci r. 2 01 1) (ci ti ng Uni te d th

S t at es v. Gray

, 53 5 F.3 d 12 8, 13 1– 32 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Esp a r z a

Herre ra, 55 7 F.3 d 10 19

, 12 4– 25 (9 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Uni te d St at es v. McF al ls

, 59 2 F.3 d

70 7, 71 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 )). The re was th us a reas on ab le ba si s up on whi ch to de ve lo p

a le ga l th eo ry un de r Beg ay at th e ti m e Gro om s' ap pe al was reo pe ne d, an d he can no t

sh ow cau se fo r hi s de fa u l t

. As Gro om s fai ls to sh ow cau se an d pr ejud ic e ex cu si ng

hi s pr oc ed ur al de fau lt an d do es no t se ek an y ot he r ex cep ti on , he is ba rred fro m
br in gi ng hi s cl ai m

.

In an y ev en t, the di st ric t co ur t co ul d h av e le ga ll y sen te nc ed Groo m s t o a 18 8

m on th se nt en ce fo r hi s dr ug co nv ic ti on s al on e. The st at ut or y m ax im um fo r Gro om s'

dr ug co nv ic ti on s is 20 y ears im pr is on m en t, 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

. Gro om s' two

un ch al le ng ed vi ol en t fel on y co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi ed hi m as a c a r e e r of fen de r un de r

U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1

. Bec au se of th e 20 y ear m ax im um pe na lt ie s fo r Gro om s' two dr ug

co nv ic ti on s, hi s ba se of

fen se le ve l wou ld ha ve be en 32

, § 4B 1.1 (b )(3 ), red uc ed to 29

be cau se of hi s acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y an d ti m el y no ti ce of in te nt to pl ead gu il ty.
§ 3E1 .1(a ), (b ). W it h a cri m in al hi st or y of VI, Gro om s' se nt en ci ng ran ge fo r th e two

dr ug co nv ic ti on s wou ld ha ve be en 15 1 to 18 8 m on th s ev en wit ho ut an arm ed care er
cri m in al en ha nc em en t.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-5

-