Beale v. USA, No. 2:2020cv01112 - Document 1 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Michael Terrell Beale. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/1/2021. (MR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beale v. USA Doc. 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 United States of America, 4 Case No.: 2:17-cr-00050-JAD-CWH-1 Plaintiff 5 v. Order Denying Motion to Vacate Sentence 6 Michael Terrell Beale, 7 [ECF No. 80] Defendant 8 Michael Beale is serving a 74-month federal prison sentence after pleading guilty to 9 unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. 1 Beale moves under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2255 to vacate his felon-in-possession conviction under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 11 Rehaif v. United States, which clarified that a defendant must be aware of his status as a felon in 12 order to be convicted of this firearm offense. 2 Despite the complexity of § 2255 habeas 13 proceedings, Beale’s case can be summed up simply. Unlike the Rehaif defendant, who was 14 unaware that overstaying his visa meant that he was the type of person no longer permitted to 15 own recreational firearms, Beale was a known violent felon who—after being arrested during a 16 domestic-violence call and found in possession of a revolver—cannot reasonably claim that he 17 was unaware that he had been previously convicted of crimes with sentences exceeding one year. 18 So I find that Beale procedurally defaulted his claim because he cannot show that a Rehaif error 19 prejudiced his trial, and I deny his motion. 20 21 22 23 1 ECF Nos. 76, 78. Beale did not appeal his conviction, which became final on June 27, 2018. 2 Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Dockets.Justia.com Discussion 3 1 2 A federal prisoner may attack the legality of his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by 3 showing that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United 4 States,” “the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence,” the sentence was in 5 “excess of the maximum authorized by law,” or the sentence is “otherwise subject to collateral 6 attack.” 4 A prisoner filing a claim for federal habeas relief under § 2255 is entitled to an 7 evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show 8 that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 5 9 Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, Beale argues that his 10 conviction violates the laws of the United States. In Rehaif, a defendant successfully challenged 11 his conviction for possessing a firearm as an alien unlawfully in the United States in violation of 12 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 6 Overturning a broad consensus among the circuit courts, the Supreme 13 Court held that, in order to establish a violation of § 922(g), the government “must prove both 14 that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant 15 category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” 7 But Rehaif was a unique case: the 16 defendant—a student who’d overstayed his nonimmigrant visa—was unaware of his status, 17 18 3 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, I do not repeat them here except as necessary to 19 my analysis. 4 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 20 5 Id. § 2255(b); United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We have characterized this standard as requiring an evidentiary hearing where ‘the movant has made 21 specific factual allegations that, if true, state a claim on which relief could be granted.’”) 22 (quoting United States v. Schaflander, 743 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1984)). I find this motion suitable for resolution without an evidentiary hearing. 23 6 Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2191. 7 Id. at 2200. 2 1 which precluded him from enjoying the “innocent” activity of owning and shooting firearms at a 2 firing range. 8 Invoking Rehaif’s reasoning, Beale attacks his 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 3 924(a)(2) conviction, arguing that it was fatally defective because his indictment failed to allege 4 both that Beale knew at the time of his conviction that he belonged to the “category” 9 of persons 5 barred from possessing a firearm and that he knew he was barred from possessing a firearm. 10 6 He claims that these defects robbed this court of jurisdiction and violated his rights under the 7 Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 8 I. Procedural default 9 The government argues that Beale procedurally defaulted his claim because he did not 10 challenge the sufficiency of his indictment on direct appeal. The “extraordinary remedy” 11 of 11 federal habeas “is not designed to provide criminal defendants multiple opportunities to 12 challenge their sentence.” 12 When a “criminal defendant could have raised a claim of error on 13 direct appeal but nonetheless failed to do,” he must demonstrate either “cause excusing his 14 procedural default” and “actual prejudice resulting from the claim of error,” or actual 15 innocence. 13 Noting that Beale does not assert an actual innocence claim, the government argues 16 17 8 Id. at 2194–95. 9 For Beale, that category is the class of persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year—in other words, convicted felons. See ECF No. 1 19 at 1 (indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)); see also ECF No. 68 (plea agreement). 20 10 ECF No. 80. 18 21 22 11 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998). 12 United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993). 13 Id. (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 168 (1982)); Bousley, 523 U.S. at 1611 (“Petitioner’s claim may still be reviewed in this collateral proceeding if he can establish that the 23 constitutional error in his plea colloquy ‘has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.’”) (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986)). 3 1 that Beale’s guilty plea precludes him from asserting this collateral attack, he cannot show cause 2 excusing his failure to raise these claims on appeal, and he was not prejudiced by a Rehaif 3 error. 14 Beale claims that (1) his indictment failed to assert a predicate offense, robbing this 4 court of jurisdiction, excusing any procedural default, and precluding his guilty plea’s 5 presumptive waiver of § 2255 attacks; (2) the Rehaif decision effected a sea change in the law, 6 excusing his failure to directly appeal his conviction; and (3) he was actually prejudiced or, in 7 the alternative, the structural errors plaguing his conviction relieve him of the obligation to show 8 prejudice. 15 9 A. 10 This court has jurisdiction over Beale. Beale argues that his claim is exempt from the procedural-default rule because, under 11 Rehaif, the indictment fails to properly allege an “offense” against the United States. 16 This 12 court “has jurisdiction [over] all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States.” 17 13 In United States v. Cotton, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that “defects in an indictment 14 do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case.” 18 The Ninth Circuit, other circuits, 15 other judges within this district, and this court have repeatedly affirmed that an indictment’s 16 “omission of the knowledge[-]of[-]status requirement d[oes] not deprive the district court of 17 jurisdiction.” 19 So even presuming the validity of Beale’s Rehaif-based claim, the deficiency he 18 identifies in his indictment does not preclude this court from exercising its jurisdiction. 19 14 ECF No. 82. 15 21 ECF Nos. 80, 83. 16 ECF No. 80 at 14. 22 17 Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65 (1916). 18 United States v. Cotton, 533 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). 20 23 19 E.g., United States v. Espinoza, 816 F. App’x 82, 84 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631); United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 845–46 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasoning that 4 1 B. 2 The government correctly notes that Beale did not challenge on direct appeal the Beale has shown cause, but not prejudice, to stave off procedural default. 3 indictment’s failure to allege—or the government’s failure to prove—that he knew that he had 4 been previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one 5 year. 20 But “where a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably 6 available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with 7 applicable state procedures.” 21 Rehaif’s holding is just such a novel claim, given that it 8 “overturn[s] a longstanding and widespread practice to which [the] Court has not spoken, but 9 which a near-unanimous body of lower court authority has expressly approved.” 22 So I find that 10 Beale has sufficiently shown cause to excuse his failure to raise this argument on direct appeal. 11 Beale has failed, however, to meet his burden of demonstrating that he was prejudiced by 12 the government’s omission. 23 Actual prejudice “requires the petitioner to establish ‘not merely 13 that the errors at . . . trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and 14 substantial disadvantage.” 24 To prove a felon-in-possession charge, the government’s obligation 15 16 Cotton’s holding applies where “an indictment[] fail[s] to allege the specific intent required” for a crime)); United States v. Moore, 954 F.3d 1322, 1336 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he law is clear: the 17 omission of an element in an indictment does not deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.”); United States v. Kelbch, No. 3:17-cr-00040, 2021 WL 96242, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 18 7, 2021); United States v. Reynolds, No. 2:16-cr-000296, 2020 WL 5235316, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2020) (Dorsey, J.). Beale cites no case to the contrary. See, e.g., ECF No. 83 at 13–18. 19 20 ECF No. 82 at 6. 20 21 Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16 (1984). 21 22 Reed, 468 U.S. at 17. 23 Beale, in fact, seemingly concedes this point. Instead of arguing that he could demonstrate 22 that he lacked knowledge of his status, Beale merely asserts that he “lacked notice of the knowledge-of-status element.” ECF No. 83 at 26. This does little to rebut the government’s 23 argument that any errors in his indictment are non-prejudicial. 24 Bradford v. Davis, 923 F.3d 599, 613 (9th Cir. 2019) (emphasis omitted). 5 1 is not “burdensome,” and it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. 25 At the time of his 2 guilty plea and subsequent conviction, Beale had been previously convicted of several felonies 3 and sentenced to multiple, concurrent terms of imprisonment exceeding one year. 26 Indeed, his 4 criminal history score was 23, which was 10 points more than he needed to achieve the highest 5 criminal history category of VI. 27 In his guilty plea, Beale swore that, at the time he possessed 6 this firearm, he had been “convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 7 one year.” 28 This evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Beale—unlike the Rehaif 8 defendant—well knew that he had been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a 9 term exceeding one year.” 29 And while Beale argues that a post-hoc review of the evidence is 10 inappropriate when he hasn’t raised a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, Beale must still show 11 “actual prejudice” to excuse his default. 30 Beale can’t do so with a criminal record and 12 sentencing history like his. 31 Thus, even if his indictment had stated the mens rea element 13 recognized in Rehaif, Beale’s plea and eventual judgment on the felon-in-possession count 14 15 25 Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2198. 26 Presentence Investigative Report at ¶¶ 29–49. Since age 18, Beale has served lengthy 16 sentences for violent felonies involving possession and distribution of controlled substances, domestic-violence batteries, and battery on a police officer. Id. 17 27 Id. at 50–57. 18 28 ECF No. 68. 19 29 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 30 Frady, 456 U.S. at 168 (“In applying this dual standard to the case before us, we find it 20 unnecessary to determine whether [the § 2255 petitioner] has shown cause, because we are confident he suffered no actual prejudice . . . .”). 21 31 Other courts have reasoned similarly. See, e.g., Whitley v. United States, No. 04 CR. 1381, 2020 WL 1940897, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020) (“[A]ny argument that Whitley was 22 prejudiced therefrom is belied by the sheer implausibility that, after having been convicted of multiple prior felony convictions for which sentences exceeding one year had been imposed, and 23 having in fact served more than a year in prison in connection therewith . . . , Whitley nevertheless lacked the requisite awareness of his restricted status.”). 6 1 would have been the same, 32 and I find that Beale has failed to show that he was prejudiced by 2 this omission. 3 C. 4 In the alternative, Beale argues that he need not show actual prejudice to overcome Beale’s deficient indictment does not present a structural error. 5 procedural default because his indictment’s deficiencies are structural, setting off cascading 6 violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 33 At the outset, Beale mischaracterizes Rehaif’s 7 holding by arguing that it requires the government to both prove that Beale knew that he 8 belonged to the category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms and that he himself 9 knew that he was barred from owning firearms. Rehaif does not require that a § 924(g) 10 defendant know that he was barred from possessing a firearm; it clarifies that the government 11 must demonstrate that a defendant “knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred 12 from possessing a firearm.” 34 This subtle distinction is an important one. As the Ninth Circuit 13 reasoned in United States v. Singh, requiring the government to prove that “the defendant knew 14 his or her status prohibited firearm ownership or possession,” and not merely that the defendant 15 belonged to the category of those prohibited from owning a firearm, “would improperly raise the 16 scienter requirement of § 924(a)(2) from ‘knowingly’ to ‘willfully.’” 35 So the government “must 17 18 19 32 See, e.g., United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410, 416 (8th Cir. 2019) (finding defendant 20 not entitled to relief under Rehaif when he stipulated at trial that he was a convicted felon and could not show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 21 different). 22 23 33 ECF No. 80 at 12–21; see also United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that structural errors can satisfy the procedural-default rule’s prejudice requirement). 34 Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200. 35 United States v. Singh, 979 F.3d 697, 727 (9th Cir. 2020). 7 1 prove only that [Beale] knew, at the time he possessed the firearm, that he belonged to one of the 2 prohibited status groups enumerated in § 922(g).” 36 3 In light of Rehaif’s limited scope, I am not convinced that the government’s failure to 4 include an element of Beale’s § 922(g) charge presents a structural error. “[C]ertain errors, 5 termed structural errors might affect substantive rights regardless of their actual impact on an 6 appellant’s trial.” 37 As opposed to simple errors “in the trial process itself,” 38 structural errors 7 “go to the framework within which judicial proceedings are conducted,” requiring “‘automatic 8 reversal of the conviction.’” 39 The Supreme Court has narrowed the types of errors that may be 9 deemed structural, recognizing errors like deprivation of counsel, lack of an impartial trial judge, 10 violations of the right to self-representation and a public trial, and an erroneous reasonable-doubt 11 instruction as sufficiently egregious to excuse a claimant from proving actual prejudice. 40 But 12 structural errors must necessarily affect all aspects of a trial; they cannot be merely potentially 13 damaging. 41 While the Ninth Circuit has yet to definitively rule that a Rehaif error is not structural, 42 14 15 its recent decisions have repeatedly recognized that Rehaif’s reach is limited. In Tate v. United 16 17 36 Id. at 728. Given Beale’s misreading of Rehaif, I decline to consider any alleged errors predicated on the indictment’s failure to include an element indicating that Beale needed to know 18 he could not possess a firearm. 19 37 United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010) (citations omitted). 38 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991). 39 21 McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 821 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 40 See Marcus, 560 U.S. at 263. 22 41 Accord Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 (2017). 20 42 23 See, e.g., United States v. Espinoza, 816 F. App’x 82, 84–85 (9th Cir. 2020) (expressing “no view” on whether “the district court’s failure to inform of him of the knowledge[-]of[-]status element constituted a ‘structural error’ that per se affected his substantial rights”). 8 1 States, for example, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Rehaif Court announced a statutory 2 rule and “did not invoke any constitutional provision or principle,” thus its holding could not 3 sustain a successive § 2255 challenge. 43 And the panels in United States v. Benamor and United 4 States v. Johnson declined to treat a Rehaif error as structural and instead applied plain-error 5 review, declining to overturn sentences when the defendant failed to “show how the fairness, 6 integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings would be adversely affected by affirming 7 his conviction.” 44 Other circuits almost uniformly agree that omission of the knowledge-of8 status requirement should not be treated like a structural error. 45 And the Fourth Circuit, which 9 remains the lone court to hold that this omission is structural, 46 declined to revisit the issue en 10 banc and, instead, called for the Supreme Court to resolve this rift within the circuits. 47 I agree 11 12 43 13 44 20 46 Tate v. United States, 982 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2020). United States v. Johnson, No. 18-10016, 2020 WL 6305981, at *3 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020) (declining, like the Espinoza panel, to consider whether a Rehaif-style error is structural); United 14 States v. Benamor, 937 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying the plain-error test and determining that “an error in not instructing the jury to make such a [Rehaif] finding did not 15 affect [the d]efendant’s substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial”). 16 45 See, e.g., United States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397, 403–05 (1st Cir. 2019); United States v. Hicks, 958 F.3d 399, 401–02 (5th Cir. 2020) (rejecting the notion that a Rehaif error is 17 structural); United States v. Coleman, 961 F.3d 1024, 1029–30 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting the 18 argument that a plea suffering from a Rehaif error is structural and applying a reasonableprobability standard to the third prong of plain-error review); see also United States v. Balde, 19 943 F.3d 73, 97–98 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that in some cases a Rehaif error may have no effect on a defendant’s conviction or decision to plead guilty). 21 United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194, 205–06 (4th Cir. 2020), cert granted No. 20-444, 2021 WL 77245 (Mem), 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 214 (Jan. 8, 2021). 47 United States v. Gary, 963 F.3d 420, 420 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Wilkinson, J., concurring) (“I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for one reason and one reason only. The panel’s 22 holding is so incorrect and on an issue of such importance that I think the Supreme Court should consider it promptly . . . . Is it eight—or nine—circuits that disagree with us? I have lost count, 23 but the ranks are growing.”). Beale’s attempts to explain why this concurrence’s, and the majority of other circuit courts’, views should be ignored are unavailing. 9 1 with the reasoning of the majority of the circuit courts. Not only has the Supreme Court held 2 that a district judge’s failure to instruct the jury on an offense element (which is similar to an 3 indictment’s omission of an element) does not amount to structural error, 48 but the Rehaif Court 4 remanded for harmless-error review rather than reversing the conviction outright. 49 So I decline 5 to excuse Beale from making a showing of actual prejudice, and I deny his § 2255 motion. 6 II. Tollett v. Henderson bars Beale’s claims. 7 Alongside Beale’s procedural default and failed jurisdictional challenge, I also find that 8 he waived his ability to challenge his indictment in his guilty plea. A guilty plea generally 9 constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. 50 In Tollett v. Henderson, the Court held 10 that a guilty plea is “a break in the chain of events” of the criminal process, barring “independent 11 claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the 12 guilty plea” but excepting those attacks premised on the knowing and voluntary nature of his 13 plea or, relatedly, ineffective assistance of counsel. 51 Like the Tollett defendant, Beale’s attack 14 does not challenge this court’s jurisdiction, he “solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact 15 guilty of the offense with which he is charged,” 52 and he “knowingly and expressly waive[d] all 16 collateral challenges, including under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to his conviction.” 53 I am also not 17 persuaded by Beale’s assertion that his indictment’s alleged Rehaif error presents an exception to 18 19 48 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999); see also United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 n.6 (2004) (“The omission of a single Rule 11 warning without more is not 20 colorably structural.”). 49 Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200. 50 22 Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 29–30 (1974). 51 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). 23 52 Id. at 267. 53 ECF No. 68 at 9. 21 10 1 Tollett’s bar. While the Ninth Circuit has recognized that Tollett’s ruling may not apply to cases 2 in which an “indictment failed to state a valid claim,” 54 the Supreme Court has upheld the bar 3 when the indictment could “have been ‘cured’ through a new indictment.’” 55 The government’s 4 failure to include the knowledge-of-status requirement in Beale’s indictment is exactly the type 5 of error that could have been cured with a new indictment. So I find that Beale has also waived 6 his collateral attack under Tollett. 7 III. Certificate of appealability 8 To appeal this order, Beale needs a certificate of appealability from a circuit or district 9 judge. 56 In deciding whether to grant one, I consider if “reasonable jurists could debate whether 10 (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or 11 that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 57 12 Although this standard is “lenient,” 58 I find that Beale’s challenge does not meet it. So I deny 13 him a certificate of appealability. 14 Conclusion 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Beale’s motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 16 [ECF No. 80] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a separate civil 17 judgment denying Beale’s § 2255 petition and denying a certificate of appealability. The 18 19 20 54 United States v. Johnston, 199 F.3d 1015, 1020 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999). 55 22 Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018). 56 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). 23 57 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). 58 Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 21 11 1 Clerk must also file this order and the civil judgment in this case and in the related civil case: 2 2:20-cv-01112-JAD. 3 _______________________________ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey February 1, 2021 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 12
]]>
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.
