Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Madison McRae, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Madison McRae, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Madison McRae, 4th Cir. (2015)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00223-RJC-DCK-2; 3:08-cv-00219-RJC)
Argued:
Decided:
and
pro
se
attempt
to
have
After an unsuccessful
his
sentence
vacated,
se
Relief
motion
from
with
the
Judgment
district
court
60(b)(1)(3)(6).
entitled
The
Motion
district
for
court
McRae appeals
this judgment.
The threshold issue before us is whether we can review the
district courts categorization of McRaes motion without first
issuing a Certificate of Appealability (COA) pursuant to 28
U.S.C.
2253(c)(1)(B).
We
hold
that
recent
Supreme
Court
I.
A.
In 2004, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent
Blaine
Crum
Rodney Green,
activity.
McRae
had
began
after
investigating
he
became
McRaes
suspicious
of
co-defendant,
drug
trafficking
Andrea Spears.
to
Jamaica,
as
had
Greens
connection
of two different airports (Green and McRae from one and Spears,
Harris, and Bailey from the other), all of their tickets had
been purchased using cash at the Columbus, Ohio airport.
When Spears, Harris, and Bailey returned from Jamaica they
were questioned at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport
by customs agents, who seized cocaine and marijuana from Harris
and Bailey.
the
interviews,
Agent
Crum
called
the
Charlotte
airport and learned that Bailey and Harris had been transporting
controlled substances.
photograph.
Based
on
information,
Agent
Crum
arrested
Baileys, and that McRae and Green had contacted each other just
before leaving for Jamaica.
In February 2005, McRae was charged with four drug-related
offenses.
At
the
ensuing
trial,
Green,
Bailey,
Harris,
and
and
McRae
successfully
imported
kilogram
of
cocaine
in
August 2004, Green and McRae arranged for Spears, Harris, and
Bailey
to
tickets,
Jamaica.
travel
and
Green
to
Jamaica.
bought
1.5
McRae
kilograms
purchased
of
cocaine
everyones
while
in
Green also gave McRae Ace bandages and duct tape for
strapping the cocaine onto Bailey and two smaller packages for
Harris and Spears to insert into their vaginas.
According to Bailey, in mid-August 2004 McRae offered her
$500 to go to Jamaica and bring something back.
J.A. 182.
After initially agreeing Bailey changed her mind, but McRae said
since
they
already
had
the
tickets
J.A. 183-84.
they
could
still
go
to
she got out of the shower on their last morning in Jamaica her
ticket and birth certificate were missing.
last morning in Jamaica she got out of the shower and found a
package of drugs lying on her clothes.
she inserted the package into her vagina, but she removed it
before leaving.
According to Harris, she traveled to Jamaica at Greens
invitation, and when she got out of the shower on their last
morning there, a package of drugs was lying next to her clothes.
Following Greens instructions, she inserted the package into
her vagina.
Several law enforcement officers also testified at McRaes
trial.
the airport, McRae said that he worked in real estate and that
Green had paid for his trip to Jamaica.
He found a contact
labeled
contact
Tnia,
and
asked
McRae
if
that
was
Atonia
his consent for Agent Crum to search the phone, and Agent Crum
did not go through the phone again until he obtained a warrant.
ICE Agent Robert Mensinger, who assisted Agent Crum with
his investigation, testified about a conversation he had with
McRae at the airport.
whether
he
could
do
anything
to
help
his
situation.
Agent
J.A. 572.
room,
McRae
began
talking
about
the
trip
to
Jamaica.
J.A. 574-75.
there
was
no
corroborative
evidence
of
the
statements
The
court
denied
the
motion,
but
directed
the
Prior to jury
were
given,
and . . . any
statements
made
by
the
J.A. 655-56.
B.
After
three-day
trial,
on
September
14,
2005,
jury
each
of
the
four
charges,
to
run
concurrently.
McRae
Among
of
trial
other
and
things,
appellate
7
McRae
claimed
counsel
and
ineffective
prosecutorial
misconduct.
filing
unsuccessful
petitions
for
rehearing
and
motion
entitled
60(b)(1)(3)(6).
Motion
for
Relief
from
Judgment
Agent
Mensingers
testimony
that
McRae
knew
his
60(b)
motion
for
lack
of
jurisdiction,
holding that the motion was a successive 2255 motion for which
8
he
had
failed
2244(b)(3),
appealed,
to
and
and
obtain
declining
this
Court
preauthorization
to
issue
appointed
under
COA.
counsel
to
28
U.S.C.
McRae
timely
address
the
motion
as
an
unauthorized
successive
2255
motion
is
II.
On appeal, McRae argues that the district court erred in
treating his motion as a successive habeas petition rather than
a
mixed
Rule
60(b)/ 2255
motion,
and
that
this
Court
may
COA.
[O]ur
review
is
de
novo
where
district
court
Cir. 2011).
Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered
in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
9
R.
Civ.
P.
proceedings,
but
inconsistent
with
60(b).
only
Rule
to
the
applicable
60(b)
extent
statutory
applies
that
to
[it
provisions
2255
is]
and
not
rules.
in
the
Rule
integrity
60(b)
of
motion
the
that
federal
challenges
habeas
some
proceedings,
Id.
the
final
order
in
proceeding
under
section
10
2255
28 U.S.C.
2253(c)(1)(B). 1
Id.
[t]he
jurists
would
petitioner
find
the
must
district
courts
that
reasonable
assessment
of
the
Slack v. McDaniel,
find
it
debatable
whether
the
petition
states
valid
this
2253(c).
conclusion
Id.
at
367.
by
examining
First,
the
the
plain
Court
The Court
language
determined
of
that
11
(the
final
order),
single
habeas
action
may
Id. at 367-68.
Id. at 368.
finally,
60(b)
the
challenging
Court
the
reasoned
judgment
in
that
a
habeas
Rule
proceeding
And
proceeding
is
itself
Id.
found
that
subjecting
Rule
60(b)
motions
to
the
COA
Reid
Id. at 369-70.
Court
issued
COA,
but
then
dismissed
the
Id. at 374-75.
However,
the
COA
requirement,
which
does
not
include
an
explicit
Id.,
see also Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding
that
an
order
dismissing
12
habeas
petition
as
an
unauthorized
successive
petition
is
subject
to
the
COA
requirement).
Subsequent Supreme Court cases have made clear that we need
not accept this incongruity in every situation.
Based on the
Gonzales,
the
Supreme
Court
considered
whether
Rule
challenge
not
the
substance
of
the
federal
courts
of
the
federal
habeas
proceedings,
should
Id. at 531-33.
not
be
Central
at
183.
In
so
holding,
the
Court
noted
556
that
of
the
petitioners
detention.
Id.
Because
an
Id.
In Wilson
14
Gonzales
Court
explicitly
left
open
the
question
denying
narrower:
Rule
whether
jurisdictional
60(b)
we
motions.
may
categorization
address
of
Our
inquiry
the
district
Rule
60(b)
is
much
courts
motion
as
15
In other words,
denial
of
Rule
60(b)
motion
may
be
sufficiently
in
the
conduct
proceeding,
considering
the
No one can
say right now whether McRaes habeas proceeding was with merit
or without based on the district courts dismissal.
16
A
habeas
jurisdictional
dismissal
proceeding
so
is
far
of
removed
collateral
from
the
attack
merits
on
of
the
dispos[ing]
of
the
merits
of
habeas
corpus
We therefore hold
III.
The
parties
agree
that
the
district
court
erred
in
McRae argues, and the government agrees, that his first, second,
17
applicant
improper
an
claims
opportunity
or
having
successive application.
200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
to
the
elect
entire
between
motion
deleting
treated
the
as
here.
The government contends, however, that we should affirm the
district court on other grounds.
be
made
no
more
than
year
after
the
entry
of
the
Fed. R. Civ.
18
district
court
denied
his
2255
motion.
Therefore,
the
McRae
In United States
that
limitations
period
is
The panel,
an
affirmative
no
opportunity
justify
the
to
come
application
of
forward
with
equitable
evidence
tolling
or
Id.
the
an
Rule
defense.
60(b)
one-year
filing
deadline
is
that
might
otherwise
Similarly,
affirmative
Because the
issue of timeliness was not raised below, McRae has not had an
opportunity to make a case for timely filing.
Therefore, the
19
Although appellate
motions,
see,
e.g.,
Gonzales,
545
U.S.
also
position
Reid,
on
relief).
369
F.3d
at
375
whether
Reid
is
in
536,
the
(remanding
fact
at
and
entitled
tak[ing]
to
Rule
no
60(b)
approach as well.
district
deferential
court.).
standard
of
And
review
as
McRae
regarding
points
Rule
out,
60(b)
our
motions
Corp.,
383
F.2d
249,
251
(4th
Cir.
1967)
(The
action
is
not
lightly
to
be
disturbed
by
an
appellate
court.); see also Std. Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429
U.S. 17, 19 (1976) (noting that the trial court is in a much
better position to pass upon the issues presented in a motion
pursuant
to
Rule
60(b)
(internal
20
quotation
marks
omitted)).
For these reasons, the merits of McRaes 60(b) claims are best
left to the district court on remand.
IV.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and
remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
21
for
to
purposes
this
case,
of
in
Certificates
Blakely
our
of
Appealability.
dissenting
colleague
neither
by
Id. at
imprecise
common
Id.
usage
nor
by
an
Id.
Id. at 624.
With great
22
habeas
petition.
Because
this
conclusion
runs
only
order
circuit
have
in
2004),
justice
2253(c)(1).
we
jurisdiction
proceeding
or
judge
to
consider
under
issues
28
a
an
appeal
U.S.C.
COA.
2255
See
28
from
if
U.S.C.
held
that
district
courts
denial
of
habeas
Under
majority
our precedent.
eschews
this
straightforward
application
of
23
I cannot agree.
(2005),
Supreme
which
Court
did
not
considered
even
the
involve
interplay
COA.
There,
between
Rule
the
60(b)
The
Id.
court.
Gonzalez
does
not
empower
petitioner
to
notwithstanding
their
separate
statutory
and
analytical bases.
Whether a petitioner must first obtain a COA to appeal a
Rule 60(b) denial is, in fact, a question the Gonzalez Court
expressly declined to resolve.
Id. at 535.
And the Court even intimated that this approach was the correct
one.
appeals
is
more
plausible
and
effective
screening
authorization
for
60(b)
motions
in
the
first
we
true
Rule
60(b)
motions
differently
Indeed we must.
from
And a district
does not answer the question now before us, i.e., whether a
petitioner denied Rule 60(b) relief can, absent a COA, obtain
appellate
review.
Reid
held
that
we
lack
jurisdiction
to
The
Id. at 183.
25
A final
F.3d 596, 603 (4th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
An
order
foreclosing
such
relief
clearly
disposes
of
the
An order
The
majority
apparently
believes
that
only
by
545 U.S. at
so
recently
recognized
effective practice.
as
widespread,
plausible
and
The majority
See Reid,
369 F.3d at 375 (requiring COA for all appeals from Rule 60(b)
motions in habeas cases).
Under
see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004).
But
See Appellees
To
that
of
end,
Congress
has
stripped
courts
of
appeals
is
such
requires
dismissal
Supreme
Court
case.
of
this
has
not
Binding
appeal. 2
overruled
circuit
precedent
Because
that
believe
precedent,
thus
the
must
respectfully dissent.