Asazuh Mobley v. United States
697 F. App'x 646
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mobley filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing he was actually innocent of a § 924(c) offense after Johnson v. United States because his underlying offense—conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery—allegedly is not a "crime of violence."
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion and granted a certificate of appealability on the Johnson-related question.
- Johnson (2015) held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Welch (2016) made that rule retroactive on collateral review.
- § 924(c)(3) defines "crime of violence" with an elements clause (§924(c)(3)(A)) and a risk-of-force clause (§924(c)(3)(B)); the question was whether Johnson's void-for-vagueness reasoning applied to §924(c)(3)(B).
- This circuit previously held in Ovalles that Johnson does not invalidate §924(c)(3)(B) because that clause serves a different purpose and is not unconstitutionally vague in the same way.
- Mobley separately argued (not raised below) that Hobbs Act conspiracy does not fall within §924(c)(3)(B); the court reviewed that contention only for plain error and found no controlling precedent supporting Mobley.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's void-for-vagueness holding invalidates §924(c)(3)(B) so Mobley is actually innocent of a §924(c) offense | Johnson voids the risk-of-force clause in §924(c)(3)(B), so the underlying conspiracy cannot be a crime of violence | Ovalles controls: Johnson does not extend to §924(c)(3)(B); the clause is distinct and not unconstitutionally vague | Court affirmed: Johnson does not apply to §924(c)(3)(B); Mobley’s claim is foreclosed |
| Whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery falls outside §924(c)(3)(B) (argument raised for first time on appeal) | Mobley contends Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a §924(c) crime of violence | Government argues Mobley waived and no precedent shows the offense falls outside §924(c)(3)(B) | Reviewed for plain error; Mobley failed to identify controlling precedent, so argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards of review for §2255 proceedings)
- Owens v. United States, 672 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2012) (explains elements vs. residual clause terminology)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (held Johnson does not invalidate §924(c)(3)(B))
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Lejarde–Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (defining when an error is plain under controlling precedent)