In re Williams
Decision Date | 24 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 16-13013-J,16-13232-J,16-13013-J |
Parties | In re: Dennis D. Williams, Petitioner. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Danli Song, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Conrad Benjamin Kahn, Federal Public Defender's Office, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner.
Arthur Lee Bentley, III, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Successive Habeas Respondent.
Dennis Williams, Coleman, FL, Pro Se.
Before HULL, MARCUS and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
BY THE PANEL:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), Dennis D. Williams has filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Such authorization may be granted only if this Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving:
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C); see also Jordan v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. , 485 F.3d 1351, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2007) ( ).
Williams has filed two applications—one through counsel and one pro se —indicating that he wishes to raise one claim in a second or successive § 2255 motion. Because the applications raise substantially the same claim, we consider them together. In the applications, Williams asserts that his claim relies upon a new rule of constitutional law, citing Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), in which the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the violent felony definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague and that imposing an increased sentence under that provision, therefore, violates due process. He also cites Welch v. United States , 578 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2016), in which the Supreme Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Specifically, Williams argues that the district court enhanced his sentence pursuant to the residual clause of the ACCA and, as a result, violated his due process rights. He also argues that his sentence was enhanced under the career-offender guideline, and that he was subject to a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851 and 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), and that the ruling in Johnson should be extended to render those enhancements unconstitutionally vague.
The ACCA defines the term “violent felony” as any crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that:
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). The first prong of this definition is sometimes referred to as the “elements clause,” while the second prong contains the “enumerated crimes” and, finally, what is commonly called the “residual clause.” United States v. Owens , 672 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 2012).
Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides that a defendant is classified as a career offender if (1) he was at least 18 years old at the time of the offense of conviction; (2) the offense of conviction was either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) he had at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The guidelines define “crime of violence” as any offense under federal or state law that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and:
According to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), a person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, or possesses with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years to life. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) ; see also id. § 841(a)(1). Such a person shall be subject to a mandatory life sentence if he commits the offense “after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final,” and the government files an information setting forth the prior convictions pursuant to § 851. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851(a).
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court in Johnson held that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague because it creates uncertainty about how to evaluate the risks posed by a crime and how much risk it takes to qualify as a violent felony. Johnson , 576 U.S. at ––––, 135 S.Ct. at 2557–58, 2563. The Supreme Court clarified that, in holding that the residual clause is void, it did not call into question the application of the elements clause and the enumerated crimes of the ACCA's definition of a violent felony. Id. at ––––, 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
Id. at 1195–96.
In its April 18, 2016, Welch opinion, the Supreme Court explained that, by striking down the ACCA's residual clause as void for vagueness, Johnson changed the ACCA's substantive reach and altered “the range of conduct or the class of persons that the [Act] punishes.” Id. at ––––, 136 S.Ct. at 1265 (brackets in original) (quotation omitted). Applying the retroactivity framework set forth in Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), and its progeny, the Court further stated that Johnson was not a procedural decision because it “had nothing to do with the range of permissible methods a court might use to determine whether a defendant should be sentenced under the [ACCA].” Id. Accordingly, the Court ruled that “Johnson is thus a substantive decision and so has retroactive effect under Teague in cases on collateral review.” Id.
Thereafter, in In re Griffin , No. 16-12012, manuscript op. at 7-10 (11th Cir. May 25, 2016), we held that an applicant seeking leave to raise a Johnson -based challenge to his career offender enhancement, which was imposed when the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, did not make a prima facie showing that his claim satisfied the criteria of § 2255(h)(2) because he was not sentenced under the ACCA or beyond the statutory maximum for his crime. In doing so, we concluded that “logic and principles established in Matchett also govern ... when the Guidelines were mandatory.” Id. at 7. We reasoned that the Guidelines, whether advisory or mandatory, cannot be unconstitutionally vague because they do not establish the illegality of any conduct and are designed to limit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Clayton
...the successive § 2255 motion context without any adversarial testing or opportunity for further review. See In re Williams , Nos. 16–13013, 826 F.3d at 1355–57, 2016 WL 3460899, *4 (extending the “concurrent sentence doctrine,” a rule the Supreme Court long ago said offers nothing more than......
-
United States v. Padgett
...Cir. 1985)); United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fuentes-Jimenez, 750 F.2d at 1497); In re Williams, 826 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2016) (applying the concurrent sentence doctrine to deny an inmate's application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion und......
-
In re Williams
...about how to perform the gatekeeping function of §§ 2244(b)(3)(C) and 2255(h). Compare Ochoa, 485 F.3d at 543, with In re Williams, 826 F.3d 1351, 1357 (11th Cir. 2016) (declining to grant a motion where the applicant "made a prima facie showing under Johnson as to Count 3" but could not sh......
-
U.S. v. St. Hubert
...2016) In re McCall , 826 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. Jun. 17, 2016) In re Jackson , 826 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. Jun. 24, 2016) In re Williams , 826 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. Jun. 24, 2016) In re Parker , 827 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. Jul. 7, 2016) In re Gordon , 827 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. Jul. 8, 2016) In re Sap......