Charles Chubb, Jr. v. United States
707 F. App'x 388
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Charles Chubb was convicted in 1992 of drug and firearms offenses and, based on prior state convictions (attempted robbery and kidnapping), was sentenced as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines to 327 months plus a consecutive 60 months.
- The Sentencing Guidelines’ definition of “crime of violence” then included a residual clause analogous to the ACCA residual clause. Chubb argued his kidnapping conviction qualified only via that residual clause.
- In June 2015, the Supreme Court held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutional in Johnson v. United States. Chubb filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in December 2015 arguing Johnson entitled him to relief from his career-offender designation.
- The district court denied relief, relying on Beckles v. United States (which held the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges after Booker). Chubb appealed, contending Beckles did not control because his sentence predated Booker when the Guidelines were mandatory.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial — not on the Beckles preemption question — but because Chubb’s § 2255 motion was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
- The court held Chubb could not rely on § 2255(f)(3) (a new right recognized by the Supreme Court made retroactive) because whether Johnson applies to mandatory Guidelines is an open question; Raybon v. United States foreclosed treating Johnson as a newly recognized, retroactive right for this purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 motion | Chubb: motion timely under § 2255(f)(3) because filed within one year of Johnson | Gov: motion untimely; Johnson not a newly recognized, retroactive right for mandatory-Guidelines cases | Motion untimely under § 2255(f); denied |
| Applicability of Johnson to mandatory Guidelines | Chubb: Johnson voids the Guidelines residual clause that triggered his career-offender status | Gov: Beckles indicates guidelines vagueness challenges fail; applicability to pre-Booker sentences disputed | Court did not decide merits; treated question as open and relied on Raybon to reject § 2255(f)(3) claim |
| Need to hold case in abeyance pending certiorari in Raybon | Chubb: request to hold in abeyance because Raybon petitioner may seek certiorari | Gov: abeyance unnecessary | Abeyance denied — insufficient reason to delay |
| Alternative bases for denial (successive motion) | N/A (gov raised as alternative) | Gov: motion may be successive under § 2255(h) | Court declined to reach alternatives because untimeliness disposed of case |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (holding advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (rendering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory)
- Raybon v. United States, 867 F.3d 625 (6th Cir.) (concluding Johnson did not clearly recognize a new, retroactive right applicable to mandatory-Guidelines sentences for § 2255(f)(3) purposes)