Herbert Rozier v. United States
701 F.3d 681
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rozier was convicted in 2001 of distributing crack cocaine and received a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felonies, including Florida battery on a law enforcement officer (BOLEO) under Fla. Stat. § 784.07(2)(b).
- Rozier’s direct appeal in 2002 (Rozier I) held the BOLEO conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause but did qualify under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2).
- In 2010, the Supreme Court issued Johnson v. United States, holding Florida BOLEO is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA elements clause, but Johnson did not decide the residual clause issue.
- Rozier filed a 2011 § 2255 motion arguing Johnson retroactively invalidates his career offender classification and sentence.
- The district court found Johnson retroactive but held that the decision did not warrant resentencing due to law-of-the-case and lack of intervening controlling-law change at the time Rozier’s sentence was affirmed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding no § 2255 relief was available because there was no controlling change in law since Rozier I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson is retroactive to Rozier’s case. | Rozier: Johnson retroactively invalidates the career offender enhancement. | Government: Johnson retroactive but not grounds for relief here given law-of-the-case. | Johnson retroactive but no collateral relief warranted |
| Whether Johnson conflicts with Rozier I and eliminates Rozier’s career offender classification. | Rozier: Johnson conflicts with Rozier I; BOLEO cannot be a valid predicate. | Rozier I remains controlling; Johnson did not mandate remand. | No conflict; Rozier I remains binding; no resentencing required |
| Whether §2255 relief is available absent an intervening controlling-law change. | Rozier: relief should be granted to correct a known error. | Government: law-of-the-case and lack of intervening change bar relief. | Relief denied; §2255 relief not available absent intervening change in controlling law |
| Whether the district court properly applied the modified categorical approach and undisputed PSI facts. | Rozier: PSI undisputed facts support residual-clause violent-crime finding. | Government: district court could rely on PSI to determine violence. | Undisputed PSI facts could support the residual-clause finding; but issue resolved on Johnson retroactivity and law-of-the-case |
| Whether the decision is supported by the residual clause analysis post-Johnson. | Rozier: residual-clause analysis would invalidate the enhancement. | Government: residual clause analysis remains consistent with Rozier I. | Johnson did not require resentencing; residual-clause analysis not decisive here |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2010) (Florida BOLEO not a violent felony under the elements clause; residual-clause discussion left open)
- Rozier v. United States, 37 Fed.Appx. 499 (11th Cir. 2002) (Rozier I; BOLEO not an elements-clause crime but violent under residual clause)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 2008) (limits residual clause applicability; strict liability-like offenses not within residual clause)
- Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2012) (explains residual-clause standards for violence in § 4B1.2)
- Sykes v. United States, — U.S.— (Supreme Court 2011) (guides interpretation of residual clause violence)
- Williams, 559 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding BOLEO alone does not satisfy § 4B1.2(a)(1) after Johnson)