In Re: Dennis Williams
826 F.3d 1351
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dennis D. Williams seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) and 2255(h) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States.
- Williams was convicted in 2008 of (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841), (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and (3) possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)).
- He was sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) on Count 3; the government also filed a § 851 notice that exposed him to a mandatory life term on Count 1 under § 841(b)(1)(A).
- Johnson (and Welch’s retroactivity holding) invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; Williams argues Johnson undermines his ACCA enhancement and should extend to the career-offender guideline and other statutory enhancements.
- The Eleventh Circuit held Williams made a prima facie showing under Johnson as to the ACCA predicate issue for Count 3, but denied authorization because any favorable change would not provide relief: Williams already serves a concurrent mandatory life term on Count 1 unaffected by Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson authorizes a successive § 2255 to attack the ACCA-based enhancement on Count 3 | Johnson invalidates the ACCA residual clause; Williams may no longer be an ACCA and thus is entitled to relief | Govt: Even if ACCA error exists, Williams still gets no practical relief because of an unrelated mandatory life on Count 1 | Prima facie showing met for Count 3, but authorization denied because Williams would not benefit (concurrent mandatory life on Count 1) |
| Whether Johnson extends to invalidate career-offender guideline enhancement | Williams: Johnson’s vagueness holding should apply to the guideline residual clause and render career-offender status void | Govt: Matchett and Griffin preclude applying vagueness doctrine to Guidelines; Welch does not make Johnson applicable to Guidelines for successive § 2255 | Denied: Guidelines not subject to Johnson-based successive challenge under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent (Matchett, Griffin) |
| Whether Johnson affects mandatory life under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or § 3559(c) three-strikes enhancement | Williams: Johnson’s vagueness holding should extend to other statutes/guidelines that increased his sentence | Govt: § 841 mandatory life is tied to prior felony drug convictions, not ACCA residual clause; § 3559(c) distinct statutory scheme | Denied: § 841(b)(1)(A) and § 3559(c) not implicated by Johnson; Count 1 life sentence unaffected by Johnson |
| Whether appellate authorization should issue to file a successive § 2255 when relief would be illusory | Williams: Johnson relief should be authorized because it undermines ACCA enhancement | Govt: Authorization would be futile because Williams already serves an independent mandatory life term | Denied: Court refuses to authorize filing when petitioner cannot show a reasonable likelihood of benefit; exercise in futility barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (vagueness doctrine does not invalidate advisory or mandatory Sentencing Guidelines)
- Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for prima facie showing in successive petition authorization)
- In re Henry, 757 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2014) (applicant must show reasonable likelihood of benefit from new rule to obtain authorization)
- In re Vassell, 751 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (authorizing successive petitions that would be time-barred or futile is unnecessary)
- Brown v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Low, 817 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (concurrent sentences can render challenge to one sentence insufficient to obtain relief under savings clause)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (concurrent sentence doctrine principles)