Bruce Leonard Oxner v. United States, 16-17036

In 1995 Oxner was convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle and possession of a firearm by a felon; the PSR treated three prior burglaries (Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana) as ACCA predicate violent felonies.
The PSR originally lacked details for the Texas burglary; after Oxner objected, probation amended the PSR to state the Texas burglary was of a grocery store, and Oxner withdrew his objection.
At sentencing the court adopted the PSR and applied the ACCA enhancement; the court did not state which clause of § 924(e)(2)(B) it relied on (enumerated- crimes/elements clause vs. residual clause).
Oxner filed a second or successive § 2255 based on Johnson (challenging the residual clause) and also argued Descamps would defeat the enumerated-crimes reading.
The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion, concluding the record showed the sentencing court relied on the enumerated-crimes/ elements analysis (not the residual clause), and held Descamps cannot be raised in a second or successive § 2255.
This Court affirmed, applying Beeman’s “more likely than not” burden for Johnson claims and rejecting reliance on Descamps in a successive § 2255.

Issue	Oxner's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Oxner’s Johnson claim shows his ACCA enhancement depended on the residual clause	The sentencing must have relied on the residual clause because Descamps would now show the prior burglaries do not qualify under the enumerated/ elements provision	Record circumstantial evidence (PSR amendment re: Texas burglary and the others already matching enumerated crimes at the time) shows the court relied on the enumerated-crimes clause, not the residual clause	Court held Oxner failed to show it was more likely than not the residual clause was used; Johnson claim fails
Whether Oxner may rely on Descamps in a second or successive § 2255 to attack the enumerated-crimes basis for the enhancement	Descamps demonstrates the prior burglary convictions no longer qualify under the elements/enumerated clause, so relief should follow	Descamps is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive for second or successive § 2255 motions	Court held Descamps cannot be raised in a second or successive § 2255; Oxner cannot convert his claim into a Descamps challenge

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (definition of generic burglary for ACCA)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarified categorical approach to predicate offenses)
Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir.) (movant must show "more likely than not" the residual clause produced the enhancement)
In re Thomas, 823 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir.) (Descamps not retroactive for successive § 2255)
In re Hires, 825 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.) (Descamps not retroactive for successive § 2255)
Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.) (standards of review for § 2255 proceedings)