Collateral Review Waivers Survive Post-Taylor Challenges – United States v. Smith, No. 23-50619 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025)

1. Introduction

The Fifth Circuit’s unpublished per curiam decision in United States v. Smith refines the law governing the enforceability of appellate and collateral-review waivers contained in plea agreements when a defendant later invokes new Supreme Court authority. Edwin Ledell Smith attempted to vacate his 420-month sentence for a § 924(j) firearm-murder conviction after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), which declared that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). The Fifth Circuit rejected Smith’s bid, holding that:

• a knowing and voluntary waiver of collateral review remains valid even where later caselaw arguably undermines the conviction, and
• alternative predicate offenses—here, drug-trafficking conspiracy and murder—sustain a § 924(j) conviction even if the dismissed or referenced predicate later becomes invalid.

This commentary unpacks the ruling, its doctrinal roots, and its implications for plea practice, § 2255 litigation, and the evolving law post-Taylor.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Western District of Texas’s denial of Smith’s § 2255 motion on two independent grounds:

1. Procedural bar – Waiver: Smith’s plea agreement contained an express waiver of the right to file any collateral attack, and the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and within statutory limits.
2. Merits – Alternative predicates: Even if the waiver did not apply, Smith’s § 924(j) conviction would survive because (a) murder itself is a crime of violence, and (b) drug-trafficking conspiracy supplies an independent “drug-trafficking crime” predicate under § 924(c).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) – Core principle that a guilty plea entered in the light of then-existing law is not rendered involuntary by subsequent legal developments. The Fifth Circuit invoked Brady to defeat Smith’s argument that Taylor retroactively vitiated his plea.
• United States v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2020) & United States v. Caldwell, 38 F.4th 1161 (5th Cir. 2022) – Both enforce waiver clauses even when new Supreme Court decisions create potential defenses. They provided the direct template for enforcing Smith’s waiver.
• United States v. Riojas, 139 F.4th 465 (5th Cir. 2025) – Addresses wavier of the waiver; cited to show the government did not forfeit its waiver argument on appeal.
• United States v. Diaz-De Leon, 2024 WL 2763809 (5th Cir. May 30, 2024) – Recent authority that an uncharged or dismissed predicate offense can sustain a § 924(c) conviction. Used to uphold Smith’s conviction on alternative drug-trafficking grounds.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Validity of the Waiver
   • The court applied a two-step test (Kelly): (i) knowing and voluntary; (ii) scope.
   • Record demonstrated Smith understood he was surrendering appellate and § 2255 rights.
   • The sentence (420 months) did not exceed the statutory maximum for § 924(j) (life), satisfying the “no-illegal-sentence” limitation on waivers.
   • Later legal changes (Taylor) do not undermine a waiver because the right waived is statutory, not constitutional (Leal).
2. No Government Forfeiture
   Though the government did not press the waiver forcefully below, it referenced the waiver, giving the district court and the Fifth Circuit a sufficient record to rule.
3. Merits as Independent Ground
   Even disregarding the waiver, the court parsed § 924(j): it criminalizes causing death with a firearm in the course of a § 924(c) violation. Section 924(c) itself can be supported by either a “crime of violence” (elements clause) or “drug-trafficking crime.”
   • Murder (Smith’s own conduct) is per se a crime of violence.
   • The plea colloquy established a conspiracy to distribute marijuana (§§ 846, 841) – a drug-trafficking predicate. Under Munoz-Fabela and progeny, a separate conviction is not required.
   Consequently, Taylor’s holding on attempted Hobbs Act robbery is immaterial.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

• Strengthening Plea Bargains. The decision fortifies prosecutors’ and courts’ reliance on waiver clauses, signalling that Taylor (and likely any pending Supreme Court expansion of the categorical approach) will not disturb final judgments where a defendant executed a comprehensive waiver.
• Strategic Considerations for Defendants. Defense counsel must rigorously evaluate future-law risks before advising clients to sign global waivers; once signed, escape routes are virtually closed.
• Government’s Litigation Choices. Even minimal invocation of a waiver appears sufficient; appellate courts may enforce it sua sponte if the record permits.
• Section 2255 Landscape. Smith narrows the availability of post-Taylor relief in the Fifth Circuit, distinguishing it from circuits that have granted vacatur where no waiver existed.

4. Simplifying Complex Concepts

• Collateral Attack / § 2255 Motion: A lawsuit filed by a federal prisoner, separate from direct appeal, asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence.
• Waiver: A contractual relinquishment of a right (here, appeal and post-conviction challenges) contained in a plea agreement. Courts enforce waivers if made knowingly, voluntarily, and within lawful sentencing limits.
• Hobbs Act Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951): Robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce. “Attempted” Hobbs Act robbery tries but fails to complete the act.
• Crime of Violence vs. Drug-Trafficking Crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)): • “Crime of violence” – felony with an element of force (elements clause) or enumerated offenses.
  • “Drug-trafficking crime” – felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), e.g., conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
• § 924(j): Enhances penalties where a firearm used during a § 924(c) violation results in death; effectively a firearm-murder statute.
• Certificate of Appealability (COA): A threshold permission slip required for a prisoner to appeal an adverse § 2255 ruling; granted only on “debatable” constitutional issues.
• “Knowing and Voluntary” Plea: The defendant understood the nature of the charge, consequences of the plea, and rights waived, free of coercion or undisclosed promises.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Smith reinforces an unwavering rule in the Fifth Circuit: a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily bargains away the right to appeal and collaterally attack a conviction cannot later reclaim that right merely because Supreme Court doctrine evolves. Even if Taylor neutralizes one predicate offense, alternative predicates or the violent nature of the underlying conduct may keep the conviction intact. The decision sends a clear message—waivers are enduring, plea colloquies matter, and the finality of judgments will not yield easily to post-hoc doctrinal shifts. Defense practitioners must treat waiver clauses with the same gravity as the substantive counts themselves, and federal prisoners contemplating § 2255 relief must carefully examine whether a waiver closes the door before investing in substantive arguments.