Holt v. United States
843 F.3d 720
7th Cir.2016Background
- Jakeffe Holt was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for unlawful firearm possession and sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to 200 months based on prior convictions including an Illinois burglary conviction.
- After Johnson v. United States invalidated the § 924(e) residual clause, Holt filed a second § 2255 motion attacking his sentence; the government conceded Mathis/Haney would undermine the burglary classification.
- The Seventh Circuit previously held the Illinois burglary statute under which Holt was convicted was not a “burglary” for § 924(e) purposes (United States v. Haney).
- Holt sought authorization to pursue a second or successive § 2255 petition; the court of appeals granted permission under § 2255(h) (based on the Johnson/Welch developments).
- The district court denied relief after concluding Holt’s claim relied on statutory interpretation (Mathis/Haney) rather than a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Holt’s claim is statutory (Mathis), not constitutional (Johnson/Welch), and therefore does not meet the requirements for a second or successive § 2255 under § 2255(h)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Holt's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holt may proceed with a second or successive § 2255 petition based on Mathis/Haney | Mathis/Haney undermine the classification of his burglary conviction and are retroactively available to vacate his ACCA enhancement; effectively part of Johnson-based relief | Mathis is a statutory interpretation (not a new retroactive constitutional rule) and Haney (a Cir. decision) cannot satisfy § 2255(h)(2) | Denied — § 2255(h)(2) does not authorize a second § 2255 based on Mathis/Haney |
| Whether Holt’s claim actually rests on Johnson (a retroactive constitutional rule) | Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause incentivized challenges to elements-clause classifications, so Holt’s claim should be treated as Johnson-based | Holt’s burglary was classified under the categorical burglary clause, not the residual clause; Johnson does not affect the burglary clause | Denied — Holt’s claim rests on statutory construction of “burglary,” not Johnson |
| Whether appellate authorization to file a second § 2255 precludes review of whether the claim satisfies § 2255(h) | Holt contends authorization should allow the merits to be heard | The court may authorize filing for preliminary reasons, but the district court must dismiss claims that do not satisfy § 2255(h); that dismissal is reviewable on appeal | Held — authorization to file is not entitlement to relief; district court properly required Holt to show § 2255(h) requirements and denied relief |
| Whether Holt could obtain relief via § 2241 instead | Not squarely pursued in this appeal | Government notes § 2241 is a different avenue and location-of-confinement considerations apply | Not decided — left open for Holt to pursue in the district of confinement if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (made Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (interpreted "burglary" for categorical/indivisible statutes)
- United States v. Haney, 840 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2016) (held the Illinois burglary statute at issue does not qualify as ACCA burglary under Mathis)
- Dawkins v. United States, 829 F.3d 549 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Mathis-based arguments do not justify second or successive § 2255 relief)
- Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2016) (explained Johnson’s effect on incentives to challenge elements-clause classifications but did not extend Johnson to the elements clause)