United States v. Flowers ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
September 12, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 04-3206
CARROLL JAM ES FLOW ERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
OR DER
Filed September 12, 2006
Before H E N RY, M cKA Y, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is granted for the purpose of revising the
published opinion filed on M arch 22, 2006. The revised opinion, filed nunc pro
tunc to M arch 22, 2006, is attached.
Entered for the Court,
Elisabeth A . Shumaker, Clerk of Court
By:
Deputy Clerk
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
March 22, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 04-3206
CARROLL JAM ES FLOW ERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T HE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D .C . N o. 03-C V -3051-SAC; 00-CR-40024-08-SAC)
Submitted on the briefs: *
Carroll James Flowers, pro se.
Rudy E. Verner and Peter J. Krumholz of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Denver,
Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eric F. M elgren, United States Attorney, and Anthony W . M attivi, Assistant
United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Before H E N RY, M cKA Y, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore submitted without oral argument.
M cK A Y, Circuit Judge.
Appellant pled guilty to Count I of a multiple-count indictment for
conspiracy to manufacture or distribute more than one kilogram of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Prior to Appellant’s plea
of guilty and in an attempt to raise the statutory minimum applicable to
Appellant’s eventual sentence, the government filed an information with the
district court outlining Appellant’s prior felony drug conviction. Pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 851(a)(1), the government was also required to serve the information on
Appellant before the entry of the plea agreement. In an attempt to do so, the
government faxed a copy of the information to Appellant’s attorney. The district
court accepted the guilty plea and set a date for sentencing. Supp. Rec., Vol. III,
at 21-22.
At sentencing, based on Appellant’s total offense level and criminal
history, the sentencing range recommended by the United States Sentencing
Guidelines M anual (“Guidelines”) w as betw een 210 months and 262 months. Id.,Vol. II, at 50. However, based on the prior felony conviction contained in the §
851(a)(1) information, the district court increased the statutory minimum
applicable to Appellant to 240 months. Accordingly, the effective sentencing
range considered by the district court was betw een 240 months and 262 months.
2
Id.; see also id., Vol. IV, at 3. The district court sentenced Appellant to 240
months’ incarceration followed by a ten-year term of supervised release.
On appeal Appellant argues, inter alia, that the district court was without
jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence under 21 U .S.C. § 851(a)(1) because
the government failed to properly serve the § 851(a)(1) information. Appellant
did not object to the district court’s reliance on the § 851(a)(1) enhancement
during sentencing or directly appeal on that ground. The matter is now before us
on collateral review .
W hether § 851(a)(1) is considered jurisdictional is critical for A ppellant.
Jurisdictional defects cannot be procedurally defaulted or forfeited during the
course of litigation. See, e.g., United States v. Broce, 781 F.2d 792, 797 (10th Cir.
1986). Consequently, if § 851(a)(1) is not labeled jurisdictional, then Appellant
may not now advance the argument that he never received the § 851(a)(1)
information in a timely fashion.
Section 851(a) provides:
(1) N o person who stands convicted of an offense under this part . . .
shall be sentenced to increased punishment by reason of one or more
prior convictions, unless before trial, or before entry of a plea of
guilty, the U nited States attorney files an information with the court
(and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for
the person) stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied
upon.
In interpreting whether this statutory provision should be construed as
jurisdictional, we are guided by the recent Supreme Court case of Eberhart v.
3
United States, 126 S. Ct. 403, 546 U.S. ___ (2005) (per curiam), in which the
Court distinguished “‘between a rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction and an
inflexible claim-processing rule.’” Id. at 403 (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S.
443, 456 (2004)). In Eberhart, which concerns a Defendant convicted of
conspiring to distribute cocaine seeking to file an untimely post-trial motion, the
Court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)’s prohibition on
extension of time was not jurisdictional, but nevertheless required the district
court to “observe the clear limits of the Rules of Criminal Procedure when they
are properly invoked.” Id. at 406. The Court categorized Rule 45(b) as a claim-
processing rule and held that such limits are “forfeitable when they are not
properly invoked.” Id.
The Court stated that “[i]t is implausible that the Rules considered in
Kontrick [holding that defenses made available by the time limitations of Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may be forfeited] can be nonjurisdictional claim-
processing rules, while virtually identical provisions of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure can deprive federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 405.
Indeed, the Court went as far as to admonish those who referred to claim-
processing rules as jurisdictional, when this descriptor should be reserved “only
for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and
the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court’s adjudicatory authority.”
Id. at 405 (internal quotation omitted).
4
Section 851(a) and its requirements fall neatly within the category of a
claim-processing rule. Section 851(a)(1) is the same type of rule as Rule 45(b)
discussed in Eberhart, where the requirement for timely-filing post-trial motions
controls the district court’s power to entertain a motion but does not govern the
court’s underlying authority to hear that type of case–it does not restrict the
district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Section 851(a)(1) directs the district
court in imposing a sentence, but it does not limit the district court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction over sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (conferring original
subject-matter jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United
States”).
W e have sometimes confused the term “jurisdictional” and have held in
several cases that § 851’s requirements were in fact “jurisdictional.” In Eberhart,
the Court acknowledged that the imprecise use of the term, often “‘to describe
emphatic time prescriptions in rules of court,’” has led courts to improperly use
“jurisdictional” to describe rules that do not encompass subject-matter
jurisdiction. Eberhart, 126 S. Ct. at 406 (quoting Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 454). W e
now expressly overrule our previous decisions that have improperly designated
§ 851(a)’s requirements as jurisdictional. 1
1
W e have circulated this opinion to the en banc court pursuant to our rules.
Each member of the en banc court has concurred with our holding that § 851(a) is
not jurisdictional. We therefore overrule the following cases w ith regard to their
(continued...)
5
W e are not alone in this conclusion. In Prou v. United States, the First
Circuit explained that “[o]nce subject-matter jurisdiction has properly attached
[through 18 U.S.C. § 3231], courts may exceed their authority or otherw ise err
without loss of jurisdiction. 199 F.3d 37, 45 (1999) (declining to hold that §
851(a)’s requirements go to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction).
Likewise, the Seventh Circuit has held that § 851(a) “merely affects the district
courts’ power to impose penalties [and] has nothing to do with subject-matter
jurisdiction . . . .” United States v. Ceballos, 302 F.3d 679, 692 (2002); see also
Sapia v. United States, No. 03-2087, 2005 W L 3540098, at *4 (2d Cir. Dec. 28,
2005) (“W e agree with the prevailing view . . . that § 851 is not
‘jurisdictional.’”); United States v. M ooring, 287 F.3d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 2002)
(holding that § 851(a)’s requirements are not jurisdictional). But see Harris v.
United States, 149 F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that “a district court
lacks jurisdiction to enhance a sentence unless the government strictly complies
with the procedural requirements of § 851(a).”). Therefore, because we determine
that § 851(a)(1) is not jurisdictional, Appellant has forfeited his opportunity to
1
(...continued)
treatment of § 851(a) as jurisdictional: United States v. Ruiz-Castro, 92 F.3d
1519, 1536 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Wright, 932 F.2d 868, 882 (10th
Cir. 1991); United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Guerrero, 89 F. App’x 140, 146 (10th Cir. 2004); United States v.
Bracamonte, No. 99-2101, 2000 W L 140004, at *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 8, 2000);
U nited States v. G onzalez-Lerm a, 71 F.3d 1537, 1540 (10th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Larsen, Nos. 90-8027, 90-8090, 1991 W L 240140, at *2 (10th Cir.
Nov. 12, 1991).
6
raise, at the level of appellate review , the argument that he did not receive his
information.
Appellant also argues that his counsel’s failure to object at sentencing to
the government’s service by fax of the § 851(a) enhancement constituted
ineffective assistance of counsel. In Appellant’s collateral attack, the district
court, after conducting a fact-finding hearing, determined that “[t]he
uncontroverted facts establish that the government complied with § 851(a) when
it served by telefax a copy of the information on defense counsel prior to the
defendant’s entry of his plea.” M emorandum and Order, 19 (D. Kan. June 14,
2004). W e disagree with the district court and hold that the government failed to
comply with § 851(a)’s service requirements.
Service by fax does not always substitute for traditional means of service.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not have their own service
requirements and instead adopt the service requirements found in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(b). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allow service by fax only when the party being served by fax has
consented to it in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D ). Nowhere in the record is
there any indication that Appellant gave written consent to service by fax. The
government admits that it did not strictly comply with the rules governing service
by fax and instead urges us to hold that strict compliance with the service
requirements is not necessary when the government substantially complies with
7
the service requirements. For support, the government looks to other circuits that
have not required absolute compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
when the government uses § 851. See United States v. Weaver, 905 F.2d 1466,
1481 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 1304, 1309 (D.C. Cir.
1990).
W e have, however, always required strict compliance with § 851. The
language of the statute, though we do not now treat it as jurisdictional, does
impose strict requirements on the government before the government can seek an
increase in the statutory mandatory maximum or minimum sentence. 21 U.S.C. §
851(a) (“No person . . . shall be sentenced to increased punishment . . .
unless . . . .”). That Congress intended § 851 to “provide[] a measure of
protection” to defendants from the use of prior convictions to change the statutory
sentences for crimes also argues in favor of strictly enforcing § 851 against the
government. See United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 628 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because the Appellant did not consent in writing to service by fax, the
government did not comply with § 851(a).
Appellant’s counsel’s failure to object to the faulty service does not,
however, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant points to United
States v. Prou, 199 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1999), to show where failure to raise a §
851(a) objection constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In Prou, the First
Circuit held that “[w]here . . . an attorney fails to raise an important, obvious
8
defense without any imaginable strategic or tactical reason for the omission, his
performance falls below the standard of proficient representation that the
Constitution demands.” Id. at 48. In Prou, the failure to object occurred after a
jury trial and conviction and where there was no possible strategic value in not
making a § 851(a) objection that would have obviously been sustained. Id. In
Appellant’s case, the alleged failure to object occurred at the change of plea
hearing where there was a strategic reason for not objecting. The transcript of the
change of plea hearing leaves no doubt that Appellant understood that
acknowledging the prior conviction and its effect on his sentencing was part of
the plea agreement. In fact the plea agreement seems predicated on the fact that
the government would use only one prior conviction instead of two for § 851(a)
purposes. Any objection to the service would probably have resulted only in a
continuance and proper service. This was not a forfeiture of a “clear winner”
objection like in Prou but a strategic litigation decision that does not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Finally, Appellant argues that his counsel’s performance was deficient
because counsel did not file a notice of appeal or object to the inclusion of
methamphetamine in the presentence report. As to the lack of appeal, we agree
with the district court that “after considering the totality of the circumstances,
including what defense counsel knew or should have known, that defense counsel
was not deficient in failing to consult with the Appellant about an appeal.” Order
9
16. As to the inclusion of methamphetamine in the presentence report, we agree
with the district court that counsel was not “unreasonable” in deciding not to
challenge information included in the presentence report. Id. at 20.
W e, therefore, A FFIR M the judgment of the district court.
10