explaining that a “statutory maximum sentence” is a “punishment ceiling beyond which no [convicted] defendant . . . may be sentenced” and noting that, where a statute and mandatory guideline sentence are inconsistent, “the guideline[] 68 Case: 12-11212 Date Filed: 12/24/2013 Page: 69 of 110 [sentence must] . . . bend to statutorily prescribed limits, not the other way around”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a “statutory maximum sentence” is a “punishment ceiling beyond which no [convicted] defendant . . . may be sentenced” and noting that, where a statute and mandatory guideline sentence are inconsistent, “the guideline[] 68 Case: 12-11212 Date Filed: 12/24/2013 Page: 69 of 110 [sentence must] . . . bend to statutorily prescribed limits, not the other way around”
- concluding that the savings clause did not authorize a federal prisoner to bring in a § 2441 petition a claim, which would otherwise be barred by the rule respecting second or successive § 2255 motions, that the Sentencing Guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a longer sentence that did not exceed the statutory maximum
- explaining that a “statutory maximum sentence” is a “punishment ceiling beyond which no [convicted] defendant ... may be sentenced” and noting that, where a statute and mandatory guideline sentence are inconsistent, “the guideline[ ] [sentence must] ... bend to statutorily prescribed limits, not the other, way around”
- holding that the rule espoused in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), which decided that state prisoners could not circumvent the bar on successive habeas petitions by filing Rule 60(b) motions, applies equally to federal prisoners
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (2017)
640 F.3d 1293, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (applying Gonzalez in the § 2255 context), overruled on other grounds by McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076
Limited by Albert Williams v. Warden, Federal Bureau of Prison, 713 F.3d 1332 (2013)
Rather, Gilbert addressed — and explicitly limited its holding to — circumstances where a federal prisoner sought to attack a potential misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines that resulted in a higher sentence, but one that remained within the statutory maximum.
The opinion
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,
concurring, in which EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, joins:
I fully agree with the court’s explanation of why the district court could not grant Gilbert the relief he seeks, but feel obliged to make the following observations.
First, I think it unnecessary to describe in detail the circumstances of Gilbert’s crime — including the presence of his five-year old daughter — and Gilbert’s criminal record, and then posit that, if he were to be resentenced, the district court would likely impose the same sentence he received in the first instance. None of that is relevant. I therefore do not join in part II.A of the court’s opinion. The sole issue we are called upon to decide is whether the savings clause applies in this ease. The court holds, correctly, that it does not.
Second, having decided that the savings clause does not apply in this case, we do not need to imagine the potential consequences of a contrary holding. I therefore decline to join part II.B.4 of the court’s opinion.