In Re: Brad Bradley Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273

Background

Bradford was sentenced in 2008 to 180 months and designated a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior Florida convictions for burglary (1991) and cocaine trafficking (1995).
He did not challenge his sentence on direct appeal. He filed an initial § 2255 in 2010 attacking the career-offender designation; the district court denied it and he did not appeal.
In June 2016 Bradford applied to the Eleventh Circuit for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising a Johnson-based challenge to the Guidelines’ residual clause, and separately moved to hold his application in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles.
The Eleventh Circuit previously denied his 2016 application on the ground that Johnson does not apply to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines (following United States v. Matchett).
The panel dismissed Bradford’s second application for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b) and 2255(h), and denied his motion to hold the application in abeyance pending Beckles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the court hold Bradford’s application in abeyance because the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Beckles?	Bradford asked to hold the application pending Beckles, arguing the forthcoming decision may affect his claim.	A grant of certiorari does not change the law; courts cannot rely on a certiorari grant to grant relief; Congress requires a 30-day adjudication.	Denied — certiorari grant is not a basis to hold the application in abeyance.
Is Bradford’s Johnson-based claim cognizable in a second or successive § 2255 after he already raised the claim in a prior application to the court of appeals?	Bradford seeks to relitigate the Johnson claim in a new application.	§ 2244(b)(1) bars consideration of claims presented in prior applications; such repetitious filings are jurisdictionally prohibited.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — claim was previously presented and § 2244(b)(1) applies.
Does § 2255(h) incorporate the certification and procedural limits of § 2244(b)?	Bradford implicitly contends limitations should not prevent consideration of his claim.	§ 2255(h) incorporates § 2244(b) procedures and bars repeated filings; courts must follow the 30-day rule and other incorporated limits.	Held that § 2255(h) incorporates the procedural and jurisdictional bars of § 2244(b), including (b)(1) and (b)(3)(D).
If Beckles later holds the Guidelines residual clause unconstitutional, may Bradford pursue relief?	Bradford seeks to preserve the possibility of relief based on future Supreme Court rulings.	The panel explained prior denial was with prejudice to the Johnson theory but without prejudice to a new claim grounded on a future Beckles ruling.	If Beckles (or other precedent) holds the Guidelines residual clause unconstitutional, Bradford may file a new application based on that new rule.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (Eleventh Circuit precedent holding Johnson inapplicable to the advisory Guidelines residual clause)
Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie showing standard for successive habeas applications)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (U.S. 2007) (failure to obtain authorization for second or successive petition deprives district court of jurisdiction)
Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2014) (§ 2255(h) incorporates § 2244(b)(3)(A) certification requirement)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider second or successive § 2255 without court of appeals authorization)
Williams v. Warden, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (bar on second or successive motions is jurisdictional)