In re: Darren Demeatrie Gordon
827 F.3d 1289
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Darren Demeatrie Gordon was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), using/carrying a firearm in relation to that robbery (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Sentences: 240 months (Hobbs Act) and 120 months (felon-in-possession) to run concurrently; a consecutive 60 months for the § 924(c) count.
- Gordon sought authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, invoking Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause and making that rule retroactive).
- Section 2255(h) permits a second or successive motion only if it raises a claim based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court; the court of appeals must make a prima facie determination under § 2244(b)(3)(C).
- The key legal question: whether Gordon’s § 924(c) sentence depends on the now-invalid ACCA-style residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B), or whether his companion Hobbs Act robbery conviction independently qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the § 924(c)(3)(A) use-of-force (elements) clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gordon may obtain authorization to file a second/successive § 2255 based on Johnson/Welch attacking the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause | Gordon: Johnson/Welch invalidate the residual clause; his § 924(c) sentence was imposed at least in part under that clause, so he falls within § 2255(h) | Government: Gordon’s § 924(c) conviction rests on a Hobbs Act robbery that qualifies under the use-of-force clause § 924(c)(3)(A), so Johnson does not help him | Denied — Gordon failed to make a prima facie showing because the Hobbs Act companion conviction independently qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery (the companion conviction) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) without reliance on the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause | Gordon: (implicitly) Hobbs Act might require the residual-clause analysis | Government/Court: Hobbs Act robbery necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force and thus fits the elements clause | Held: Hobbs Act robbery clearly qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A); no Johnson-based relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie threshold for successive petitions)
- In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (procedural requirements for successive § 2255 applications)
- United States v. Owens, 672 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2012) (ACCA clause structure discussion)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. (2015) (invalidating the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. (2016) (holding Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)