Case Name: Samuel Bryce SILK, Jr. Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 712 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 16-4428
Parties: Samuel Bryce SILK, Jr. Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee
Judges: Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 712
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Samuel Bryce SILK, Jr. Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee
No. 16-4428
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: February 22, 2018
Filed: February 23, 2018
Chad R. McCabe, McCabe Law Firm, Bismarck, ND, for Petitioner-Appellant
■Samuel Bryce Silk, Jr., Pro Se
Gary Lee Delorme, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jonathan O’Konek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, for Respondent-Appellee
Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Bryce Silk, Jr. appeals the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after it sua sponte enforced a collateral review waiver in his plea agreement. Silk's motion raises one claim: that he could not, as a matter of law, have committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty, domestic assault as a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117.
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the collateral review waiver is unenforceable because, during the plea hearing, the district court neither informed Silk of the terms of the waiver, nor determined that he understood its terms. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N); United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 516 (8th Cir. 2011). We therefore vacate the denial of Silk's § 2255 motion, and remand the case to the district court for further consideration. We leave for the district court to determine,in the first instance: (1) whether any other procedural hurdles preclude consideration of Silk's claim on the merits; and (2) if not, whether Silk had at least two prior qualifying convictions that were "final" on July 12, 2014, when the events underlying this case occurred. See 18 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1) (requiring, as relevant, that a defendant's prior convictions be both "final" and "against a spouse or intimate partner"); see also United States v. Wroblewski, 816 F.3d 1021, 1024-25 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773, 774-76 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, we note that Silk attacks the validity of his conviction, and his currently scheduled release date is May 11, 2018. We are confident the district court will act expeditiously.
Mandate to issue forthwith.