United States v. Pyles

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. JASON LEE PYLES DEFENDANT

Case No. 2:16-CR-20031

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

June 21, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 76) from Chief United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford on Defendant's motion to vacate (Doc. 46). The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on March 5, 2021, and recommends that Defendant's motion be denied. Defendant argues in his motion to vacate that his prior offenses were insufficient to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), and that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to raise this argument. Defendant also filed a supplemental brief (Doc. 54) to his motion to vacate, implicating the United States Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. --, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). Defendant argues that he is actually innocent of the crime of conviction—felon in possession of a firearm—because the Government failed to prove Defendant knew he was a prohibited person, and Defendant argues that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to raise this argument. Defendant filed objections (Doc. 78) to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations with respect to all of his claims. The Government also objected (Doc. 77) to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations as it relates to the supplemental brief filed by Defendant, asking the Court to address and rule on Defendant's Rehaif argument. The Court has reviewed the report and recommendations de novo with respect to these objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

First, Defendant maintains that the ACCA enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) should not have been applied in his case. He argues that his May 17, 1995 conviction for possession of methamphetamine was not a "serious drug offense" according to the ACCA because the offense only involved .23 mg of methamphetamine, which Defendant states was for his "personal use." The Magistrate Judge correctly recommends denying this claim for relief because it was not raised on direct appeal and cannot be collaterally attacked without a showing of prejudice, or actual innocence. There can be no showing of prejudice or actual innocence here because the Court applies a modified categorical approach when analyzing whether this prior conviction qualifies under the ACCA, and the state court charging document and judgment indicate that Defendant was charged with and convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver—the elements of which qualify as a "serious drug offense." United States v. Meux, 918 F.3d 589, 591 (8th Cir. 2019).

Defendant's second argument is that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to raise the aforementioned ACCA argument. Because that argument is without merit, Defendant cannot show prejudice under the Strickland test for analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and the Magistrate Judge correctly recommends this claim be denied as well. See Davis v. United States, 673 F.3d 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2012) ("In order to show prejudice, a petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for the complained-of conduct the result would have been different." (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))).

The report and recommendation does not address Defendant's Rehaif argument directly as if it were a separate claim for relief, and both parties object on this basis. Defendant argues that his sentence should be vacated because the evidence underlying his conviction did not meet the elements clarified by the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif. Defendant argues that the Government did not allege in the indictment or...