Clevis Lofties v. United States
694 F. App'x 996
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lofties, a convicted felon, was arrested with a firearm and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); he received a 180-month ACCA sentence based on one robbery and four Tennessee Class D burglary convictions.
- He initially appealed and lost; later he filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (2012) challenging how his prior convictions were counted and whether they qualified as ACCA "violent felonies."
- After Johnson v. United States, Lofties supplemented his § 2255 petition (2015) arguing the ACCA residual clause is invalid and his Tennessee burglary convictions no longer qualify.
- The district court denied relief as untimely and on the merits; it refused a COA. This court granted a certificate of appealability limited to the Johnson-based claim.
- The Sixth Circuit held the Johnson claim was timely under § 2255(f)(3) and rejected Lofties’ argument that Tennessee Class D burglary is not an ACCA enumerated burglary, declining to overrule controlling Sixth Circuit precedent (Priddy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Johnson claim under § 2255 | Lofties: supplement based on Johnson was filed within one year of Supreme Court decision and thus timely under § 2255(f)(3) | Government: Lofties’ overall § 2255 was untimely; supplement should be treated as untimely amendment | Held: Timely — claim-by-claim approach applies; Johnson claim timely under § 2255(f)(3) (Welch) |
| Whether Tennessee Class D burglary qualifies as ACCA "burglary" (enumerated clause) | Lofties: Tenn. § 39-14-402(a)(3) lacks elements of generic burglary and thus cannot serve as an ACCA predicate post-Johnson | Government: Priddy controls; Tennessee Class D burglary is categorically equivalent to generic burglary and qualifies | Held: Held for Government — bound by Sixth Circuit precedent (Priddy); Tennessee Class D burglary qualifies as an ACCA enumerated burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. United States, 686 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
- Prater v. United States, 766 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.) (legal standard for ACCA predicate analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (distinguishing divisible statutes and applying the categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of "burglary" for ACCA enumerated clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- Alley v. Bell, 392 F.3d 822 (6th Cir.) (claim-by-claim timeliness approach for habeas petitions)
- United States v. Priddy, 808 F.3d 676 (6th Cir.) (holding Tennessee Class D burglary categorically qualifies as ACCA burglary)
- United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885 (6th Cir.) (precedent-on-panel rule)