In re: Dequintan Arnick
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11030
5th Cir.2016Background
- Dequintan Arnick, a federal prisoner, moved for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).
- Arnick’s enhancement relied on a prior conviction treated as a “crime of violence” via the Guidelines’ residual clause; his sentence reflected a § 2K2.1 enhancement tied to that clause.
- He seeks to rely on Johnson v. United States (holding ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness) to extend that rule to the identically worded Guidelines residual clause.
- The panel majority denied authorization, concluding Johnson has not been held by the Supreme Court to apply to the Guidelines provision nor that any such extension has been held retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- A dissenting panel judge would have authorized the successive § 2255, reasoning the screening standard is modest and Arnick made a prima facie, non-frivolous showing that his claim “relies on” the new rule announced in Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arnick may file a successive § 2255 relying on Johnson to attack U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) | Johnson’s new rule (ACCA residual clause void) should apply to the identically worded Guidelines residual clause, so he made a prima facie showing | The Supreme Court has not held Johnson applies to the Guidelines nor made any such extension retroactive; therefore Arnick fails the § 2255(h) prerequisite | Denied — authorization refused (majority) |
| Whether Johnson is a qualifying new rule for § 2255(h) purposes | Johnson is a new, retroactive rule and Arnick’s claim relies on that rule | Even if Johnson is retroactive for ACCA, it hasn’t been held to apply to § 4B1.2(a)(2) or to Guidelines enhancements generally | Majority: Johnson qualifies generally, but not shown to extend to the Guidelines in this context; Dissent: Johnson suffices to permit filing |
| Proper scope of the court’s prima facie screening of successive § 2255 motions | Screening is modest; movant need only show claim relies on a qualifying new rule, not prove ultimate success | Court may require clearer indication Supreme Court intended Johnson to govern the Guidelines before authorizing filing | Dissent: authorize; Majority: deny authorization |
| Whether precedent requires denying motions that seek a non‑foreclosed extension of a Supreme Court rule | Movant can seek non-frivolous extension and should reach district court for full consideration | Court should not authorize where Supreme Court hasn’t decided applicability or retroactivity to Guidelines | Split: Majority declines to authorize; Dissent contends authorization required |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a new rule made retroactive on collateral review)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (standards for authorizing successive § 2255 petitions)
- In re Sparks, 657 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (prima facie standard for successive § 2255; permissible to seek extensions of new rules)
- United States v. Pearson, 910 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1990) (distinguishing statutory penalty increases from Guidelines range enhancements)
- In re Hubbard, 825 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2016) (authorized successive § 2255 seeking extension of Johnson to guideline-related statute)
- In re Pinder, 824 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (authorized successive § 2255 seeking non-foreclosed extension of Johnson)
- In re Encinas, 821 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2016) (authorized challenge to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) as based on Johnson)
- Brown v. Lensing, 171 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 1999) (panel’s prima facie determination is tentative; district court reviews merits anew)