Opinion ID: 187186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The felony drug offenses

Text: Law claims the district court improperly imposed a life sentence under § 841(b) because his three prior convictions were not felony drug offenses. We conclude Law has waived this objection by failing to raise it to the district court. 21 U.S.C. § 851 establishes the procedural framework for deciding whether a defendant had been convicted of a prior felony offense. Under § 851(a), the government must file an information identifying the prior conviction. Under § 851(b), the district court must then tell the defendant he has to affirm[] or den[y] that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the information, and that  any challenge to a prior conviction which is not made before sentence is imposed may not thereafter be raised to attack the sentence.  § 851(b) (emphasis added). The defendant must then respond, in writing, under § 851(c), which explains, in pertinent part,  [a]ny challenge to a prior conviction, not raised by response to the information before an increased sentence is imposed in reliance thereon, shall be waived unless good cause be shown for failure to make a timely challenge.  § 851(c)(2) (emphasis added). Here, the government alleged Law had been convicted of three prior felony drug offenses and Law did not dispute this claim. Without citing any authority, Law argues the phrase any challenge to a prior conviction in subsections (b) and (c)(2) refers only to a collateral challenge to a prior conviction, not to arguments that the prior conviction was not a felony offense. The text of § 851 and its carefully defined framework doom his argument. As explained above, the government must first allege all aspects of a prior conviction, including felony offense status; the court must then tell the defendant he has to raise any challenge; and, finally, the defendant must bring any challenge or waive the argument. It strains credulity to argue any challenge refers only to collateral attacks on the prior conviction, as opposed to any challenges whatsoever to the government's claims as to the conviction, including allegations about offense status. See United States v. Brooks, 508 F.3d 1205, 1208-09 (9th Cir.2007) (strongly suggesting the § 851 waiver applies to challenges to the validity or nature of [the defendant's] conviction ) (emphasis added). Indeed, courts have regularly held the § 851 waiver applies to arguments that the prior conviction has not become final, even though these are not collateral challenges. See, e.g., United States v. Van-Doren, 182 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. French, 974 F.2d 687, 696-97 (6th Cir.1992) (as amended). In this case, the government filed papers, under § 851(a), showing Law had been convicted of three felony drug offenses. The district court then informed Law, as required by § 851(b), that he would waive any challenge he did not raise now. Law did not bring any challenge under § 851(c). Accordingly, since Law did not argue his crimes were not felony drug offenses before the district court, and has not shown good cause for failing to do so, he may not now raise them to attack the sentence. § 851(b). [12]