Damon Raines v. United States
898 F.3d 680
6th Cir.2018Background
- Raines pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute cocaine; district court applied the ACCA and sentenced him to 180 months.
- The ACCA enhancement rested on three prior convictions: a 1991 Michigan assault, and two 2002 federal convictions (distributing cocaine base and collection of credit by extortionate means, 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1)).
- Raines raised the multiple‑offenses and ACCA predicates on direct appeal; the court previously affirmed that the two 2002 convictions were separate predicates.
- After Johnson v. United States, Raines filed a § 2255 motion arguing his §894(a)(1) extortion conviction no longer qualified as an ACCA predicate because the residual clause was void for vagueness.
- The district court denied §2255 relief, holding each predicate still qualified under non‑residual clauses; this appeal raises whether §894(a)(1) qualifies under the ACCA absent the residual clause and whether Raines may press a Johnson claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Raines) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Raines may pursue a Johnson collateral claim | Johnson claim was timely and raised in his §2255; pro se filings adequately invoked Johnson | Potter and related cases require movant to show sentencing relied on the residual clause; Raines cannot carry that burden because sentencing record is silent | Court: Johnson claim is properly before it; Potter does not bar first §2255 petitions and district court addressed the claim on the merits, so review permitted |
| Does §894(a)(1) qualify as a "violent felony" under ACCA's use‑of‑force clause? | §894(a)(1) involves extortionate means that include threats/violence, so it is a force crime | Government contended force language suffices or alternative clauses could support enhancement | Held: §894(a)(1) is broader than the ACCA force clause because it can criminalize non‑physical harms (reputation/property) and thus does not categorically have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force |
| Does §894(a)(1) qualify as generic "extortion" under ACCA's enumerated‑offenses clause? | The statute criminalizes extortionate collection akin to generic extortion | Government argued there is no meaningful difference between consensual inducement and takings against a victim's will; thus §894 fits generic extortion | Held: §894(a)(1) is broader than generic extortion (it does not require induced consent and can cover attempts or third‑party credit collection), so it does not match the generic elements and fails the categorical test |
| Remedy and effect on ACCA enhancement | If §894(a)(1) cannot be sustained under non‑residual clauses, ACCA enhancement fails | Government argued other predicates still support ACCA or concurrent‑sentence doctrine should bar relief | Held: Because §894(a)(1) fits neither force nor enumerated clauses, it could count only under the now‑invalid residual clause; Raines is entitled to relief, the denial of §2255 is reversed, and case remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson announces a new retroactive rule of constitutional law for collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (explained divisible statutes and the categorical/modified categorical approaches)
- Potter v. United States, 887 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2018) (held limits on second‑or‑successive Johnson claims and discussed burden to show sentencing relied only on residual clause)
- Scheidler v. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (articulated generic definition of extortion as obtaining value by wrongful use of force, fear, or threats)
- United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017) (treated statutory examples vs. alternative elements under Mathis and ACCA analysis)