Rozier v. United States
Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11–13557.,11–13557. |
Citation | 701 F.3d 681 |
Parties | Herbert ROZIER, Petitioner–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brenda Greenberg Bryn, Timothy Day, Fed. Pub. Defenders, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Michael Caruso, Fed. Pub. Def., Miami, FL, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Michael A. Rotker, U.S. Dept. of Justice—Crim. Div., Washington, DC, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lisa Tobin Rubio, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attys., Miami, FL, Scott Behnke, U.S. Atty., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
In 2001, Herbert Rozier was convicted of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).In calculating his pre-United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621(2005), sentencing guidelines range, the district court applied the United States Sentencing Guidelines§ 4B1.1(Nov. 2000) career offender enhancement because Rozier had “two prior felony convictions of ... a crime of violence.”1One of the two prior felony convictions that the court found was a “crime of violence” and that made Rozier a career offender was a Florida felony conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer in violation of Fla. Stat. § 784.07(2)(b).2The career offender enhancement led to a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months imprisonment.Rozier objected to the enhancement, but the district court overruled that objection and sentenced him to 151 months in prison.Rozier appealed his sentence, contending that his prior conviction for felony battery on a law enforcement officer was not a conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
In 2002, we affirmed Rozier's sentence. United States v. Rozier, 37 Fed.Appx. 499(11th Cir.2002)(table)(unpublished)( Rozier I).In rejecting his argument that his Florida felony conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer did not qualify as a crime of violence, we explained: “Although the battery of a law enforcement officer may be committed without actual violence, in committing the unlawful touching the offender creates the potential for violence to the officer, a violent response on the officer's part, and a risk of harm to bystanders.”Id.In the nomenclature used in this type of case, our holding was that although Rozier's Florida battery on a law enforcement officer conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1), it did qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2).See e.g., Sykes v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2267, 2273–76, 180 L.Ed.2d 60(2011);James v. United States,550 U.S. 192, 196–209, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1591–98, 167 L.Ed.2d 532(2007);United States v. Chitwood,676 F.3d 971, 975–81(11th Cir.2012).3Two of our sister circuits later reached the same conclusion about similar offenses involving battery on a law enforcement officer, holding that those offenses qualify as § 4B1.2(a)(2) crimes of violence or ACCA violent felonies under the residual clause.SeeUnited States v. Williams,559 F.3d 1143, 1149(10th Cir.2009)( );United States v. Dancy,640 F.3d 455, 469–70(1st Cir.2011)( )(quotation marks omitted).
In 2011, Rozier filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, claiming that the sentencing court had erred in finding that his prior Florida felony conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer was a crime of violence for purposes of the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement and that this Court had erred in rejecting that contention when we affirmed his sentence.He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1(2010), which the Court issued nearly eight years after our decision in his direct appeal.In Johnson,the Court held that Florida's felony battery offense is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA's elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).4130 S.Ct. at 1274.The Court, however, explicitly refused to decide whether that offense was a crime of violence under the ACCA's residual clause.Id.
The district court rejected Rozier's claim and dismissed his § 2255 motion.It reasoned that even if it had been error to apply the career offender enhancement in the case, “[a]n error that would justify a reversal on a direct appeal will not necessarily support a collateral attack on a final judgment” because “the question is whether the asserted error invokes an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure or a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.”The court, however, granted a certificate of appealability on the following issue: “[W]hether Johnson v. United States,––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1(2010), should be given retroactive application so that Rozier's career offender classification should be eliminated and he should be re-sentenced.”Contrary to our dissenting colleague's selective reading, Dissenting Op.at 687, the COA does cover the questionswe address in this opinion by asking us to consider (1) whether the Johnson decision is retroactively applicable and (2) if it is, whether Rozier's career offender classification should be eliminated in light of that decision.See, e.g., McCoy v. United States,266 F.3d 1245, 1248 n. 2(11th Cir.2001)()(quotation marks omitted).
The government concedes, and we take it as a given, that the Supreme Court's Johnson decision is retroactively applicable.That does not, however, mean that Johnson entitles Rozier to § 2255 relief from the application of the career offender enhancement in his case, from the resulting sentence, and from our decision affirming that sentence and rejecting his claim on direct appeal.At least where there has been no intervening change in controlling law, a claim or issue that was decided against a defendant on direct appeal may not be the basis for relief in a § 2255 proceeding.SeeUnited States v. Nyhuis,211 F.3d 1340, 1343(11th Cir.2000);see alsoDavis v. United States,417 U.S. 333, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2303, 41 L.Ed.2d 109(1974);Fuller v. United States,398 F.3d 644, 648–49(7th Cir.2005)( );United States v. Roane,378 F.3d 382, 396 n. 7(4th Cir.2004)();White v. United States,371 F.3d 900, 902(7th Cir.2004)();United States v. Sanin,252 F.3d 79, 85(2d Cir.2001)();Oliver v. United States,90 F.3d 177, 179–80(6th Cir.1996)( );United States v. Prichard,875 F.2d 789, 790–91(10th Cir.1989)(.
The question, then, is whether the Supreme Court's Johnson decision is a change in the controlling law that was applicable at the time of Rozier's sentencing and at the time we affirmed his sentence.The answer is no.We do not...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
United States v. Clark-Castaneda
...one who is actually innocent . . . ." The law is well established that a district court need not reconsider issues raised in a section 2255 motion which have been resolved on direct appeal.
Rozier v. United States, 701 F.3d 681, 684 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2000); Mills v. United States, 36 F.3d 1052, 1056 (11th Cir. 1994). Once a matter has been decided adversely to a defendant on appeal, it cannot be... -
United States v. Peacock
...of one who is actually innocent . . . ." The law is well established that a district court need not reconsider issues raised in a section 2255 motion which have been resolved on direct appeal.
Rozier v. United States, 701 F.3d 681, 684 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2000); Mills v. United States, 36 F.3d 1052, 1056 (11th Cir. 1994). Once a matter has been decided adversely to a defendant on direct appeal, it... -
Epps v. United States
...14-15). "[W]here there has been no intervening change in controlling law, a claim or issue that was decided against a defendant on direct appeal may not be the basis for relief in a § 2255 proceeding."
Rozier v. United States, 701 F.3d 681, 684 (11th Cir. 2012). "The question, then, is whether the Supreme Court's . . . decision [at issue] is a change in the . . . law that [controlled] at the time of [Movant's] sentencing and at the time [the appellate court] affirmed his sentence."2012). "The question, then, is whether the Supreme Court's . . . decision [at issue] is a change in the . . . law that [controlled] at the time of [Movant's] sentencing and at the time [the appellate court] affirmed his sentence." Id. at 684-85. Gant was decided even before Movant was sentenced, and therefore before his appeal. Thus, Gant cannot represent a change in the law that governed Movant's Fourth Amendment claim at the time his convictions became final... -
Harris v. United States
...elements clause of the ACCA or career offender guideline. See, e.g., Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1339 (11th Cir. 2013), abrogated by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) ("Johnson II");
Rozier v. United States, 701 F.3d 681(11th Cir. 1012) (noting that in United States v. Rozier, 37 F. App'x 499 (11th Cir. 2002) it held "that although Rozier's Florida battery on a law enforcement officer conviction did not qualify as a crime...