In re: Conzelmann, No. 17-3270 (6th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

In 2011, Conzelmann pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); (b)(1)(C). The Sixth Circuit affirmed his sentence, as a career offender, to 188 months in prison. The Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition. Conzelmann filed his first 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the career offender enhancement, and that government agents “compelled” him to sell drugs. The district court denied the motion. The Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Conzelmann moved (FRCP 60(b)) for relief from judgment, arguing that his presentence report contained a factual error. The Sixth Circuit denied permission to file a second or successive 2255 motion. Conzelmann then moved for consideration under the Supreme Court’s 2016 “Mathis” decision, arguing that he should not have been classified as a career offender because his prior conviction for possessing chemicals to manufacture drugs no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction. The Sixth Circuit denied relief. A second or successive collateral attack is permissible only if it rests on newly discovered evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). Mathis did not announce a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive; the holding was dictated by precedent and merely interpreted the statutory word “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Download PDF

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0222p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN RE: SCOTT A. CONZELMANN, Movant. > No. 17-3270 On Motion to Authorize the Filing of a Second or Successive Application for Habeas Corpus Relief. Nos. 1:11-cr-00035-1; 1:14-cv-01281—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge. United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland Decided and Filed: September 20, 2017 Before: GIBBONS, SUTTON, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. _________________ LITIGANT ON MOTION: Scott A. Conzelmann, FEDERAL PRISON CAMP, Florence, Colorado, pro se. _________________ ORDER _________________ Scott A. Conzelmann, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, moves this court for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2255(h). In 2011, Conzelmann was charged with two counts of distributing cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He pleaded guilty to both counts. The district court sentenced him as a career offender to 188 months of prison followed by three years of supervised release. We affirmed, 514 F. App’x 598, 599 (6th Cir. 2013), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, 133 S. Ct. 2875 (2013). No. 17-3270 Page 2 In re Conzelmann Conzelmann filed his first § 2255 motion in 2014. He asserted two grounds for relief: that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly investigate and challenge the career offender enhancement, and that his conduct was not “federally prosecutable” because government agents “compelled” him to sell drugs. The district court denied Conzelmann’s § 2255 motion, and we refused to issue a certificate of appealability. No. 14-3818 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (order). Conzelmann filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from judgment, arguing that his presentence report contained a factual error. The district court transferred the motion to this court for consideration as a second or successive § 2255 motion. We denied him leave to file. No. 15-4212 (6th Cir. June 15, 2016) (order). This is Conzelmann’s third § 2255 motion. Invoking Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016), he claims he should not have been classified as a career offender because his prior conviction for possessing chemicals to manufacture drugs no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction for career offender purposes. A second or successive collateral attack is permissible only if the court of appeals certifies that it rests on (1) newly discovered evidence or (2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Conzelmann seeks relief only under the second prong. Hinkle does not satisfy § 2255(h)(2). It is a court of appeals decision and one from another circuit at that. Mathis does not work either. It did not announce a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. To decide whether a rule is “new” for purposes of § 2255(h)(2), we look to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). See In re Embry, 831 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2016). Under Teague, a rule is not new if it is “dictated by precedent.” 489 U.S. at 301. The Court’s holding in Mathis was dictated by prior precedent (indeed two decades worth). “For more than 25 years,” Mathis reasoned, “we have repeatedly made clear that application of ACCA involves, and involves only, comparing elements. . . . And that rule does not change when a statute happens to list possible alternative means of commission.” 136 S. Ct. at 2257. Other courts of appeal have also No. 17-3270 In re Conzelmann Page 3 concluded that Mathis did not announce a new rule. See Dawkins v. United States, 289 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Taylor, 672 F. App’x 860, 862 (10th Cir. 2016). We join them. Even if that were not the case, Conzelmann’s claim would face two more hurdles. One: Mathis does not announce a rule of constitutional law. It merely interprets the statutory word “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act. 136 S. Ct. at 2250; see also Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720, 722 (7th Cir. 2016). Two: under Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001), “a new rule is not ‘made retroactive to cases on collateral review’ unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive.” Id. at 663. Mathis has not been declared retroactive by the Supreme Court. We therefore DENY Conzelmann’s application for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Primary Holding

Sixth Circuit rejects a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based on the Supreme Court's holding in Mathis v. United States.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.