Hodges v. United States
2:16-cv-01521
W.D. Wash.May 2, 2017Background
- Melvin Hodges filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Sept. 28, 2016) arguing his sentence as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) was invalid under Johnson v. United States.
- Johnson held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague; Hodges contended the identically worded Guidelines residual clause is likewise void.
- After briefing, the Government cited Beckles v. United States; Beckles held the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.
- Hodges responded that Beckles does not control because he was sentenced in 1999—before Booker—when the Guidelines were mandatory, and Beckles’ reasoning relied on the Guidelines’ advisory/discretionary status.
- The court concluded Beckles does not necessarily resolve vagueness challenges to pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines, but Hodges’ petition is time-barred because he relied on § 2255(f)(3) without a Supreme Court decision recognizing a new retroactive right that applies here.
- The court denied the § 2255 petition but granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether the motion falls within § 2255(f)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s vagueness holding invalidates the Guidelines’ residual clause applied to Hodges | Hodges: Johnson makes the identically worded Guidelines residual clause void; his sentence as a career offender should be vacated | Government: Beckles controls — advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges; petition should be denied | Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines, but does not resolve pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines cases; court did not reach merits for Hodges because of timeliness issue |
| Whether Hodges’ § 2255 petition is timely via § 2255(f)(3) (newly recognized right by Supreme Court made retroactive) | Hodges: Johnson (as interpreted) is a newly recognized Supreme Court right that applies retroactively to his case | Government: No Supreme Court decision has recognized and made retroactive a rule applying Johnson to pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines | Held: Petition is time-barred under § 2255(f); Hodges failed to show a Supreme Court-recognized, retroactive right under (f)(3) that would permit timely filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Supreme Court 2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (Supreme Court 2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Supreme Court 2016) (Johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court 2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court 2000) (standard for certificate of appealability)