Rasan Townsend v. Warden Hazelton FCI ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 17-3284
    ____________
    RASAN TOWNSEND,
    Appellant
    v.
    WARDEN HAZELTON FCI
    __________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 2-15-cv-05304)
    District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
    __________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    March 16, 2018
    Before: GREENAWAY, JR., BIBAS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: October 31, 2018)
    ____________
    OPINION
    ____________
    PER CURIAM
    Rasan Townsend appeals from orders of the District Court denying his habeas
    corpus petition, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , and motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
    For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
    
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    Townsend, a federal prisoner, was convicted in the United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g). His criminal history included five Pennsylvania
    convictions for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance with
    intent to deliver, in violation of 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(30), which qualified
    him as an armed career criminal under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e) and United States Sentencing
    Guideline § 4B1.1. The sentencing judge calculated Townsend’s total offense level as
    33, and with a category VI criminal history, Townsend’s Guidelines range was 235 to
    293 months. The sentencing judge also determined that, under the Armed Career
    Criminal Act (“ACCA”), he faced a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence and a
    maximum sentence of life imprisonment. On January 4, 2006, Townsend was sentenced
    to a term of imprisonment of 235 months. We affirmed the criminal judgment, see
    United States v. Townsend, 242 F. App’x 885, 886 (3d Cir. 2007), and the sentencing
    judge denied his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , see United
    States v. Townsend, 
    2010 WL 5060600
     (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2010).1
    Townsend, who is incarcerated in West Virginia, filed a petition for writ of habeas
    corpus, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
    West Virginia, which was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In it, he
    argued that his five Pennsylvania drug convictions lacked the necessary elements to
    constitute predicate “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA, 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e). In an
    order entered on January 21, 2016, the District Court denied the § 2241 petition on the
    ground that, even if Townsend could resort to § 2241, his claim was meritless under
    1
    We denied Townsend a certificate of appealability in connection with the § 2255
    proceedings on May 3, 2011, see C.A. No. 11-1314.
    2
    United States v. Abbott, 
    748 F.3d 154
    , 160 (3d Cir. 2014), wherein we held that, because
    § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible, sentencing courts may apply the “modified” categorical
    approach in determining whether a defendant’s § 780-113(a)(30) conviction qualified as
    an ACCA predicate.
    Townsend filed a motion for reconsideration, and after a brief stay of the
    proceedings, the District Court, in an order entered on August 25, 2017, denied
    reconsideration. The Court concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis
    v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
     (2016), did not abrogate Abbott, citing our decision in
    United States v. Henderson, 
    841 F.3d 623
    , 628 (3d Cir. 2016) (“In light of the Supreme
    Court’s recent decision in Mathis, we find Section 780-113(f)(1) is divisible because it
    addresses different elements of the offense; not the different means of committing the
    offense.”), cert. denied, 
    138 S. Ct. 210
     (2017).
    Townsend appeals. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We exercise
    plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review its factual findings
    for clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir.
    2002) (per curiam).
    We will affirm. “Motions pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     are the presumptive
    means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences[.]”
    Okereke v. United States, 
    307 F.3d 117
    , 120 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 2255(e) of title 28,
    also known as the “savings clause,” provides, however, that an application for a writ of
    habeas corpus may proceed if “it ... appears that the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is
    inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [a prisoner’s] detention.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (e). In In re Dorsainvil, 
    119 F.3d 245
    , 251 (3d Cir. 1997), we held that the District
    3
    Court had jurisdiction to hear a prisoner’s claim under § 2241 even though he did not
    meet the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h), where an intervening U.S. Supreme
    Court case rendered the conduct of which he was convicted no longer criminal and where
    he did not have an earlier opportunity to present his claim. We have not determined
    whether § 2255(e)’s saving clause is available when a prisoner, like Townsend, argues
    that an intervening U.S. Supreme Court case renders his career-offender designation
    invalid, see United States v. Doe, 
    810 F.3d 132
    , 160-61 (3d Cir. 2015), and we need not
    do so here.
    The career offender designation under the ACCA is proper where the defendant
    has at least three prior convictions for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1). Under the ACCA, a “serious drug offense” includes “an offense
    under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to
    manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
    Controlled Substances Act (
    21 U.S.C. § 802
    )), for which a maximum term of
    imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law[.]” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(A)(ii).
    Courts must apply a categorical approach in determining whether a prior conviction
    qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA. Under this approach, courts look
    to the statutory definition or elements of the prior offense and not the underlying conduct.
    Descamps v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
    , 261 (2013). As a general matter, if the state
    statute is the same as or narrower than the ACCA definition, the prior offense qualifies as
    a “serious drug offense” under ACCA. If the statutory definition is categorically broader
    than the ACCA definition, the offense does not qualify as an ACCA predicate. 
    Id.
    4
    Nevertheless, if the statute is “divisible,” that is, it “comprises multiple, alternative
    versions of the crime,” courts apply the “modified” categorical approach to determine
    whether the defendant was convicted of a qualifying offense. 
    Id. at 262
    . Under the
    “modified” categorical approach, the court may look beyond the elements of the offense,
    that is, “the court may look beyond the face of the statute to the ‘charging document,
    written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the
    trial judge to which the defendant assented’ to determine which of the alternative
    elements was involved in the defendant’s conviction.” Abbott, 748 F.3d at 158 (quoting
    Shepard v. United States, 
    544 U.S. 13
    , 16 (2005)).
    Townsend contends that the sentencing judge erred because she applied the
    “modified” categorical approach to an indivisible statute in determining that his drug
    convictions qualified as ACCA predicates. He contends that § 780-113(a)(30) is
    indivisible because it simply outlaws possession with intent to distribute a controlled
    substance and that the punishment for an offense involving a controlled substance is not
    necessarily 10 years or more, as required by the ACCA.2 We held in Abbott, however,
    that the type of drug, insofar as it increased the possible range of penalties, was an
    element of the crime; thus § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible and sentencing courts may use
    the “modified” categorical approach. The District Court, applying Abbott, correctly held
    that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that Townsend’s Pennsylvania drug
    convictions were “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA on the ground that his drug
    2
    The statutory maximum for an offense involving cocaine or crack cocaine is ten years’
    imprisonment, while offenses involving marijuana and some other substances carry a
    maximum penalty of less than ten years. 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(f)(1.1), (f)(2)
    & (f)(3).
    5
    offenses involved cocaine or crack cocaine and that a § 780-113(a)(30) conviction for an
    offense involving cocaine or crack cocaine is punishable by up to ten years in prison.
    Furthermore, as the District Court correctly concluded in denying Townsend’s
    motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis did not undermine
    Abbott. Mathis, which rejected the sentencing court’s use of the “modified” categorical
    approach, held that, for purposes of applying the categorical approach, a statute is
    divisible only when it sets forth different elements delineating separate crimes, not when
    it sets forth different means of committing a single crime. 136 S. Ct. at 2248. We held in
    Henderson that Mathis did not abrogate Abbott, reaffirming that the different penalties
    that apply to different substances under the Pennsylvania Controlled Substances Act
    render § 780-113(a)(30) divisible for purposes of the ACCA. Henderson, 841 F.3d at
    628. In Mathis, the Supreme Court outlined three methods for making the
    elements/means determination, one of which is to ascertain whether state court decisions
    definitively answer the question. 136 S. Ct. at 2256. In Henderson, we examined state
    law and held that Pennsylvania courts have definitively determined that the specific type
    of drug used is an element of the offense, not a means of committing the offense. 841
    F.3d at 629. We noted in that case that, in order to find Henderson guilty of possessing
    heroin in violation of § 780-113(f)(1), “a jury would have to conclude that Henderson, in
    fact, possessed that specific drug which has been classified as a controlled substance in
    Schedule I or II by the Pennsylvania General Assembly,” and accordingly, those
    particular controlled substances are “distinct elements of the crime” and not means of
    committing the crime. Id. Those same considerations apply here. Accordingly, the
    6
    District Court properly denied Townsend’s motion for reconsideration on the basis of
    Henderson.
    Townsend contends in his pro se brief that Abbott and Henderson are not
    controlling in his case because, at the time he pleaded guilty to the § 780-113(a)(30)
    offenses in 2001 and 2005, drug type was not an element of the offense. He contends
    that it became so only after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States,
    
    133 S. Ct. 2151
     (2013). Appellant’s Pro Se Brief, at 3-5 ([T]he Federal Court cannot …
    convert what once was not an element to an element after that decision.”). He contends
    that when he was convicted, the state was only required to prove that he intended to
    distribute a controlled substance and not a particular drug, and, because not all § 780-
    113(a)(30) offenses are punishable by ten years’ imprisonment, his convictions are not
    ACCA predicates. Id.
    Townsend’s contention about Alleyne is wrong, and his contention that drug type
    was not an element of a Pennsylvania § 780-113(a)(30) offense at the time he was
    convicted is unsupported by the case law. Townsend cites Commonwealth v. Kelly, 
    409 A.2d 21
     (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979), but Kelly does not hold that drug type is not an element of
    the offense; it simply held that the variance in that case between the charge and the proof
    at trial was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal of Kelly’s conviction. Moreover,
    Kelly involved possession of a controlled substance in violation of 35 Pa. Cons. Stat.
    Ann. § 780-113(a)(16), and the penalty for simple possession, a misdemeanor, is the
    same regardless of the nature of the controlled substance. Kelly, 409 A.2d at 178-79.
    Townsend also cites Commonwealth v. Davis, 
    454 A.2d 612
     (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982), which
    held that the trial court did not err in permitting amendment of the charging information
    7
    from possession of cocaine to possession of heroin, noting that the penalty for possession
    of cocaine and possession of heroin was the same. Again, this case involved a possession
    offense in violation of § 780-113(a)(16), and both substances carried the same penalties.
    Davis, 
    454 A.2d at 614-15
    .
    In sum, Abbott and Henderson apply to Townsend’s case. Section 780-113(a)(30)
    is divisible because the type of drug involved in the offense, insofar as it increases the
    possible range of penalties, is an element of the crime. Therefore, the sentencing judge
    could apply the modified categorical approach to determine that Townsend’s prior state
    drug convictions qualified as ACCA predicates. The sentencing judge’s determination
    that Townsend was a career offender under the ACCA has not been invalidated by
    subsequent developments in the law, and thus there is no need for application of the §
    2255(e) safety clause here.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the orders of the District Court denying
    Townsend’s § 2241 petition and his motion for reconsideration. Appellant’s motion to
    stay the appeal pending the outcome of United States v. Glass, C.A. No. 16-2906 is
    denied as moot.
    8