Sentencing Guidelines

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Lorenzo D. Roundtree v. Jeffrey E. Krueger

Case No.: 14-3696

Officials: EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines

Lorenzo Roundtree was sentenced to life in prison for selling heroin that led to a user’s death. 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(C). Seven years later the Supreme Court held that a judge must tell a jury that the death resulting condition is satisfied only if the drug was a but-for cause of the fatality; a contributing cause is not enough. Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). The charge to the jury at Roundtree’s trial did not satisfy Burrage, and he filed collateral attack on his sentence in both the Northern District of Iowa (where his trial occurred) and the Southern District of Indiana (where he is confined). The collateral attack in Iowa rests on 28 U.S.C. §2255 and the one in Indiana on 28 U.S.C. §2241. Both district judges rejected his contentions. We put this appeal on hold while the Eighth Circuit considered Roundtree’s appeal in the §2255 proceeding.

Roundtree does not contend that the law has changed in the slightest after the Eighth Circuit rejected his contentions. He seeks relief under a decision the Supreme Court made in 2014, not under any development postdating the Eighth Circuit’s decision. Roundtree recognizes that this circuit already has stated that Burrage cannot be used to litigate under §2241 if §2255 could have been (or was) used to raise the issue. See Prevatte v. Merlak, 865 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 2017). Roundtree asks us to reconsider, contending that life in prison is such a harsh punishment that procedural bars should be swept away. Yet we lack authority to create exceptions to statutes. Section 2255(e) prevents resort to §2241 unless §2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the validity of a conviction or sentence. The Eighth Circuit’s decision shows that §2255 afforded a means to address Roundtree’s arguments. His problem lies not in §2255 but in his own failure to object at trial, plus the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion that an instruction comporting with Burrage would not have affected the outcome.

Roundtree litigated and lost in the Eighth Circuit. The Supreme Court of the United States, not another court of appeals, is the right forum for his argument that the Eighth Circuit erred. Cf. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988).

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.