Wilson v. United States

Background

Isaiah Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, pleaded guilty in 2014 to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and possessing a firearm in connection with drug trafficking and a crime of violence. The parties agreed that the applicable sentencing-guidelines range was 262 to 327 months because Wilson qualified as a career offender based in part on New Jersey convictions for aggravated assault and third-degree burglary. The court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 216 months.

Wilson later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence. After the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines could not be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, Wilson focused on whether his initial lawyer had been ineffective in advising him about the career-offender enhancement. The court denied that motion in August 2019. It later denied Wilson’s request for reconsideration in March 2021, while correcting its earlier conclusion that Wilson had waived his burglary argument. The court nevertheless continued to hold that the New Jersey burglary conviction qualified as a crime of violence under the applicable guidelines provision.

Wilson appealed the reconsideration ruling, but the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to make the required showing of a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court later denied Wilson’s request for review. In December 2022, Wilson filed the motion addressed in this opinion, first citing Rule 60(b) and later clarifying that he relied on Rule 60(d). Rule 60 provides limited ways to obtain relief from a prior judgment or order.

Arguments and analysis

Wilson argued that the court had committed a clear legal or factual error by deciding that his New Jersey burglary conviction qualified as a crime of violence without conducting its own independent analysis. The Government argued that the motion was both untimely and without merit.

The court first held that any request under Rule 60(b)(1) was untimely. That rule permits relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but Rule 60(c)(1) requires the motion to be filed within one year of the challenged order. Wilson filed his motion more than one year after the March 1, 2021 order.

The court then considered Rule 60(d)(1), which allows an independent action for relief from a judgment. Such relief requires the claimant to show that no other adequate remedy was available, that the claimant’s own fault did not create the problem, and that a recognized ground for equitable relief exists. It is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. The court held that Wilson failed the first requirement because he could have filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion within the one-year deadline but did not.

The court also held that Wilson’s underlying argument was not valid. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Brown, the court concluded that New Jersey’s materially similar third-degree burglary statute qualified as a crime of violence under the applicable version of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The court rejected Wilson’s argument that it was required to conduct a different independent analysis, explaining that the appellate authority Wilson cited concerned the standard of review on appeal and did not change the district court’s obligation to follow binding Second Circuit precedent.

Ruling and effect

The court DENIED Wilson’s motion for relief from the prior order denying reconsideration of the denial of his § 2255 motion. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Wilson had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order while sitting by designation.