DeJesus v. United States, 8:16-cv-01718

DeJesus filed a §2255 motion on June 23, 2016; government moved to dismiss as untimely; reply and supplemental authority followed.
Petitioner pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A) armed during a crime of violence (count four) and to conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery (count one); underlying §924(c) offense related to armed robbery of a Family Dollar (count three).
Judgment imposing 154-month sentence entered on June 5, 2007; no direct appeal filed; judgment became final on June 15, 2007.
Petitioner argued that Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States render §924(c) vague and warrant relief on collateral review.
Court determined the §2255 motion is untimely under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f)(1)-(f)(4) and no applicable tolling or exception applies.
Even if Johnson/Welch applied, §924(c) conviction remains valid under the use-of-force clause; In re Hines supports the §924(c)(3)(A) analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the §2255 motion	Johnson/Welch create a basis for relief and tolling.	Motion untimely; no §2255(f)(3) exception applies.	Untimely; dismissal affirmed.
Applicability of Johnson to §924(c)	Johnson extends vagueness concerns to §924(c) on collateral review.	Johnson concerns ACCA; §924(c) vagueness not addressed or extended by Johnson.	Johnson does not apply to §924(c); no vagueness relief.
Validity of §924(c) conviction despite Johnson	If §924(c) residual clause is vague, conviction may be void.	Armed robbery is a crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A); conviction valid.	Conviction valid under §924(c)(3)(A); no relief.

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA vagueness struck down; not extended to §924(c))
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (retroactivity of Johnson on collateral review)
In re Hines, 824 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2016) (companion §924(c) armed-robbery conviction qualifies as crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A))