Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207007/United-States-v-Troy-Powell-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:53:20+00:00

Document:
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
the prior offense, was life imprisonment. See id.
Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v.
the Controlled Substance Act based on a prior conviction punished under North Carolinas structured sentencing scheme).
retroactively to cases on collateral review.
sentence exceeding one year. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A1340.17(c) (1999).
criminal history. See Simmons, 649 F.3d at 241.
qualified as a "felony drug offense."
The district court dismissed Powells motion as untimely.
his 2255 motion, Powell filed this appeal.
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
punishment [in 2004 that] the law could not impose on him,"
U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), Powell faced the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The principles governing whether a new right is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review are well settled.
(plurality opinion) (quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U.S.
"the manner of determining the defendants culpability." Id.
And such procedural rules do not generally apply retroactively.
counsel against the States. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S.
would count as an aggravated felony. See id.
INA. See id. at 2589.
be punished under any criminal statute. See Schriro, 542 U.S.
in fact a recidivist. See Carachuri, 130 S. Ct. at 2589.
"constitutes a procedural rule because it dictates what factfinding procedure must be employed" (emphasis added)).
the record of conviction for his second drug offense "contained no finding of the fact of his prior drug offense." Id.
only when the finding is a part of the record of conviction"
the range of conduct or the class of persons subject to criminal punishment, we hold that Carachuri is a procedural rule.
dismissed as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3).
(2010) was wrongfully convicted of being an 18 U.S.C.
decides by construing Carachuri to announce a mere procedural, rather than a substantive, rule. Because I strongly disagree with the majoritys analysis, I am compelled to dissent.
courts denial of appellant Troy Powells 2255 motion.
hypothetical "defendant with the worst possible criminal history" for a sentence above one year. See United States v.
Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2005).
627 F.3d 534, 536 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that 28 U.S.C.
494 U.S. 484, 495 (1990)).
term "use" in such a way as to "narrow [its] scope"
and, in doing so, "place[d] particular conduct . . .
exchange for drugs. See Watson, 552 U.S. at 83.
U.S. at 352 (internal quotation marks omitted).
applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Thomas, 627 F.3d at 538 (alterations in original).
retroactive effect. Accord Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S.
614, 620-21 (1998) (recognizing substantive nature and retroactivity of rule announced in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S.
a defendant with a previous "felony drug offense" conviction.
year and enhanced sentence up to four years).
such enhanced subsection (b)(1)(A) sentence would necessarily be.
analysis of Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.
2010). There, the Seventh Circuit had to decide the retroactivity of the rule announced in Begay v. United States, 553 U.S.
In essence, Begay narrowed substantially Mr.
Welchs exposure to a sentence of imprisonment.
a statutory maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
ACCA in Chambers applies retroactively to Mr. Shipp on collateral review." Id. at 1090, 1091 (quoting Schriro, 542 U.S.
respect to my good colleagues, they are patently wrong.
relief under new Begay rule).
constitutes a felony drug offense under [21 U.S.C.
530 U.S. at 490. Applying the Apprendi principle and overruling its own contrary precedent, the Court specified in Ring v.
not] find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty." See 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002).
in [the] fashion [of Ring and Apprendi] are prototypical procedural rules").
may punish him for his violation of the law").
substantive rule. To be clear, it is not that I think 28 U.S.C.
within one year of Carachuri being decided. See 28 U.S.C.
made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review").
thereon. Justice requires that their rights be fairly adjudicated.
with finality the retroactivity issue incorrectly decided today.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.