Hrobowski v. United States, 904 F.3d 566

Patrick Hrobowski was sentenced in 2006 under the ACCA to 264 months based on four prior Illinois convictions (aggravated battery, second-degree murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated fleeing). Direct appeal affirmed.
Johnson v. United States declared the ACCA "residual clause" void for vagueness; Welch made Johnson retroactive, allowing successive § 2255 petitions premised on Johnson errors.
This court authorized Hrobowski to file a successive § 2255 petition claiming one of his predicates relied on the residual clause and thus no longer qualified.
Hrobowski also argued two other prior convictions should not count because his civil rights had been restored under Illinois law.
The district court found one conviction invalid under Johnson but held the error harmless because Hrobowski still had three qualifying prior convictions; the restoration-of-rights claim was procedurally barred in a successive petition.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: Johnson eliminated one predicate, but Hrobowski suffered no prejudice and could not use Johnson as a vehicle to raise time-barred restoration-of-rights claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Johnson error occurred	One prior conviction was categorized via the residual clause and is invalid after Johnson	Only one predicate was invalid; the rest remain qualifying	One predicate was invalid under Johnson
Whether Hrobowski was prejudiced by the Johnson error	Removing that predicate should reduce ACCA exposure because two other convictions are ineligible due to restored rights	Even without the invalid predicate, Hrobowski still had three qualifying priors, so no prejudice	No prejudice; ACCA sentence still proper
Whether Hrobowski may raise restoration-of-rights claim in a successive § 2255 proceeding based on Johnson authorization	Johnson authorization permits collateral attacks on other sentencing grounds, including restoration-of-rights now	Restoration-of-rights is not a new constitutional rule and is procedurally barred in successive petition	Restoration-of-rights claim is procedurally barred in this successive § 2255 petition
Whether Johnson allows reopening of all prior- conviction challenges once a Johnson error is shown	Johnson error opens door to any available collateral attack	Johnson does not circumvent statutory successive-petition limits or time-bar rules	Johnson does not waive successive-petition requirements; cannot raise otherwise-barred claims

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson rule is retroactive on collateral review)
Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussed scope of Johnson-based successive petitions and limits on relying on other doctrines)
Van Cannon v. United States, 890 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2018) (permitted collateral attack on a predicate conviction where intervening change in law rendered it invalid)
Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (Illinois restoration of civil rights can remove a state conviction from ACCA counting)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified categorical approach; not a new rule that authorizes successive petitions here)
Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that Johnson authorization does not permit collateral resurrection of unrelated, time-barred claims)