No. In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DUSTIN JOHN HIGGS (CAPITAL CASE) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT JEFFREY B. WALL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record DAVID P. BURNS Acting Assistant Attorney General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Counselor to the Solicitor General CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL BENJAMIN W. SNYDER Assistants to the Solicitor General JEFFREY A. HALL ELLEN E. NAZMY Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED In 2001, the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of Maryland imposed on respondent Dustin John Higgs nine sentences of death based on respondent’s convictions for the kidnapping and murder of three women on federal land beside the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Under the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (FDPA), 18 U.S.C. 3591 et seq., “[w]hen the sentence is to be implemented,” a United States marshal “shall su- pervise implementation of the sentence in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed. If the law of the State does not provide for the implementation of a sentence of death, the court shall designate another State” as an alternate. 18 U.S.C. 3596(a). At the time of respondent’s sentencing, the State of Maryland had death-penalty laws, and so his criminal judgment incorporated the FDPA but did not designate an alternate State. The State of Mary- land, however, subsequently repealed its state-law cap- ital punishment regime. The question presented is: Whether the district court erred in holding that it lacked authority after the sentence became final to des- ignate an alternate State under 18 U.S.C. 3596(a), which would mean that a federal death sentence validly im- posed under the FDPA becomes permanently unen- forceable if the State in which the sentence was imposed later repealed its own death penalty. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner (movant in the district court, and appellant in the court of appeals) is the United States of America. Respondent (respondent in the district court, and ap- pellee in the court of appeals) is Dustin John Higgs. (II) RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D. Md.): United States v. Higgs, 98-cr-520 (Jan. 9, 2001) (conviction and sentence) United States v. Higgs, 05-cv-3180 (Apr. 7, 2010) (order denying motion under 18 U.S.C. 2255) United States v. Higgs, 05-cv-3180 (June 29, 2016) (order denying motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)) United States v. Higgs, 98-cr-520 (Dec. 29, 2020) (order denying alternate-State designation under 18 U.S.C. 3596(a)) United States District Court (S.D. Ind.): Higgs v. Daniels, 16-cv-321 (Apr. 30, 2020) Higgs v. Watson, 20-cv-665 (filed Dec. 14, 2020) United States Court of Appeals (4th Cir.): United States v. Higgs, No. 01-3 (Dec. 22, 2003) United States v. Higgs, No. 03-19 (Apr. 20, 2004) United States v. Higgs, No. 10-7 (Nov. 23, 2011) In re: Dustin Higgs, No. 16-8 (June 27, 2016) United States v. Higgs, No. 16-15 (Apr. 21, 2017) In re: Dustin Higgs, No. 20-2 (Feb. 6, 2020) United States v. Higgs, No. 20-18 (filed Dec. 30, 2020) United States Court of Appeals (7th Cir.): Higgs v. Watson, No. 20-2129 (Jan. 11, 2021) Supreme Court of the United States: Higgs v. United States, No. 03-10498 (Nov. 29, 2004) (III) IV Higgs v. United States, No. 04-5526 (Nov. 29, 2004) Higgs v. United States, No. 12-5075 (Dec. 10, 2012) Higgs v. United States, No. 17-6085 (May 29, 2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 2 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 2 Statutory provision involved ........................................................ 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 3 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................... 9 A. The district court erred in refusing to designate an alternate state under the FDPA for implementation of respondent’s federal death sentence .............................................................. 12 1. Section 3596(a) requires the district court to designate an alternate State for implementation of respondent’s federal death sentence .................................................................. 14 2. Designating an alternate State would not improperly modify respondent’s criminal judgment................................................................. 23 B. The lower courts’ refusal to provide the designation required by the FDPA should not be permitted to obstruct respondent’s lawful death sentence ......................................................................... 26 C. The district court’s error is not immune from review by a higher court .............................................. 29 Conclusion ................................................................................... 32 Appendix A — District court memorandum opinion (Dec. 29, 2020) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — District court judgment and order (Jan. 9, 2001) .............................................. 18a Appendix C — Court of appeals order (Jan. 7, 2021) ......... 27a Appendix D — Court of appeals order (Jan. 8, 2021) ......... 29a Appendix E — District court notice of appeal (Dec. 30, 2020) ............................................ 31a (V) VI TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740 (1948) ......... 10, 15, 17 Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981) ...................... 30 Barr v. Lee, 140 S. Ct. 2590 (2020) ....................... 6, 12, 22, 26 Barr v. Roane, 140 S. Ct. 353 (2019) ........................ 11, 12, 18 Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) ..................................... 12, 27 Bellard v. State, 157 A.3d 272 (Md. 2017) ......................... 5, 6 Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) ....................... 27 Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) ........... 11, 26, 28 Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) ......................... 20 Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957) ............... 30, 31 Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) .............................................................................. 27, 32 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) .................................................................................... 30 Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 (1962) ................... 30 Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) ...................... 23 Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases, In re, 955 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 180 (2020) ...................................... 6, 14, 15, 19, 26 Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010) ........... 19 Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002).............................................................. 21 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982) .................................................................................... 21 Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) ............................. 27 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) .............................. 26 Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019) .................... 19 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) .................................................................................... 25 VII Cases—Continued: Page Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) ............................. 27 Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (1976) .................................................................................... 25 United States, Ex parte, 242 U.S. 27 (1916) ................. 31, 32 United States v. Sampson, 300 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D. Mass. 2004), aff ’d, 486 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) ........... 16 United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253 (1997) ..................................... 16 United States v. Tuck Chong, 123 F. Supp. 2d 563 (D. Haw. 1999) ............................................................... 16, 21 United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975) ..................... 30 Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967) ...................... 11, 31 Statutes: Act of Apr. 20, 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112: § 33, 1 Stat. 119 ................................................................ 14 Act of June 19, 1937, ch. 367, 50 Stat. 304 ........................... 15 Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, Tit. II, § 212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1998 ........................................ 25 18 U.S.C. 924(c) ........................................................................ 4 18 U.S.C. 1111 .......................................................................... 4 18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2) ................................................................. 4 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) ................................................................... 24 18 U.S.C. 3582 .................................................................. 23, 25 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) .................................................................... 24 18 U.S.C. 3591 ...................................................................... 2, 3 18 U.S.C. 3591-3599 ..........................................................