Ezell v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1067
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Terry L. Ezell was convicted in 2008 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and of possession with intent to distribute cocaine; the district court imposed a 262‑month sentence on the § 922(g) count under the ACCA based in part on two prior Washington burglary convictions.
- Washington’s burglary statute is broader than the generic federal burglary definition; the district court applied the then‑controlling Ninth Circuit modified‑categorical approach and found the prior burglaries qualified as ACCA predicates.
- Ezell filed a direct appeal and an initial § 2255 petition, both unsuccessful; his earlier request for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 petition was denied in 2013.
- After the Supreme Court decided Descamps (addressing when the modified categorical approach may be used), Ezell sought appellate authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) to file a successive petition claiming Descamps entitles him to relief.
- The Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether the statutory 30‑day rule for resolving § 2244(b)(3)(D) motions is mandatory and (2) whether Descamps announced a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive under § 2255(h)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30‑day limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D) to grant/deny authorization is mandatory | Ezell implicitly argued court should act promptly; not fatal that >30 days elapsed | Government argued timing provision should not preclude review if missed | Court held the 30‑day limit is hortatory, not jurisdictional; it may exceed 30 days for complex issues |
| Whether Descamps announced a “new rule” under Teague/§ 2255(h)(2) | Descamps created a new rule that could invalidate Ezell’s ACCA enhancement | Court/Gov argued Descamps clarified existing statutory interpretation and did not break new ground | Court held Descamps did not announce a new rule; it clarified existing doctrine |
| Whether Descamps is a rule “of constitutional law” under § 2255(h)(2) | Ezell argued Descamps implicated Sixth Amendment concerns discussed by the Supreme Court | Government argued Descamps is a statutory‑interpretation decision, not a constitutional ruling | Court held Descamps is statutory interpretation, not a constitutional rule for § 2255(h)(2) purposes |
| Whether Ezell made a prima facie showing to file a successive § 2255 petition under § 2255(h)(2) | Descamps made him eligible to challenge ACCA enhancement | Government contended Descamps neither new nor constitutional, so gatekeeping not satisfied | Court denied authorization: Ezell failed to satisfy the first two prongs of § 2255(h)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified that the modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (definition of what constitutes a new rule for habeas retroactivity)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (treating modified categorical approach as issue of statutory interpretation)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment factfinding and sentencing context discussed in Descamps)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (framework for § 2255(h)(2) and retroactivity inquiries)