Ross-Varner v. United States

Background

In 2015, Samantha Leigh Ross-Varner pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of North Carolina to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), along with a related offense. She was serving her sentence in the Northern District of California. She filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of that custody. The United States moved to dismiss the petition.

Ross-Varner’s Claim

Ross-Varner argued that her guilty plea was constitutionally inadequate because the sentencing judge told her that the government had to prove she knowingly possessed a firearm, knew she was a felon in the sense that she had a qualifying prior conviction, and possessed a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce. The sentencing judge did not tell her that the government also had to prove she knew she was a felon when she possessed the firearm. The Supreme Court later clarified that requirement in Rehaif v. United States.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The court explained that challenges to a federal conviction or sentence generally must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence, rather than under § 2241 in the court where the person is held. A custodial court may consider the challenge under § 2241 only when the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Under the rule applied by the court, that exception requires both a claim of factual innocence and the absence of an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present the claim.

The court found that Ross-Varner satisfied neither requirement. It characterized her argument—that the government failed to prove the knowledge requirement later clarified in Rehaif—as a claim of legal error rather than factual innocence. The court also found that she had not been prevented from presenting the claim in the sentencing court. Ross-Varner filed a § 2255 motion in 2018, and the sentencing court did not resolve it until April 27, 2020, after Rehaif was decided on June 21, 2019. The court reasoned that Ross-Varner could have sought to amend her § 2255 motion to add the Rehaif claim but did not do so.

Disposition

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the petition. It further held that Ross-Varner could not cure the identified defect because the relevant dates could not change, making amendment futile. The court therefore dismissed the petition with prejudice. Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order.