In Re: Devon Chance
831 F.3d 1335
11th Cir.2016Background
- Devon Chance seeks authorization to file a second/successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion relying on Johnson v. United States (voiding an ACCA residual clause) and related retroactivity holdings.
- Chance was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (Count 1), conspiracy to possess a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (Count 2, 18 U.S.C. § 924(o)), six Hobbs Act robberies (substantive counts), and six corresponding § 924(c) convictions; total sentence 1,794 months plus fines.
- Johnson and subsequent Eleventh Circuit guidance (e.g., In re Pinder) raised the question whether § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual-clause definition of "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson.
- The court concluded the substantive Hobbs Act robbery convictions as charged still qualify under § 924(c)’s elements clause (use/threatened use of force), so the related § 924(c) counts survive Johnson.
- Chance’s § 924(o) conspiracy conviction relied on a companion conviction of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, which may not qualify post-Johnson; the Court granted authorization to file a second § 2255 motion as to Count 2.
- The opinion emphasizes that the district court must decide the § 2255 motion de novo and criticizes a different Eleventh Circuit panel’s dicta requiring proof that the sentencing judge expressly relied on the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chance may obtain authorization to file a second/successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson | Johnson's holding applies to § 924(c)’s residual clause and thus may render Chance’s Count 2 unlawful | The government argues existing convictions/sentences remain valid because substantive Hobbs Act robberies satisfy the elements clause; sentencing court’s reliance matters | Authorized as to Count 2: Chance made a prima facie showing under § 2255(h)(2) because his § 924(o) companion conviction may no longer qualify post-Johnson |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery convictions still qualify as crimes of violence after Johnson | Chance: companion conspiracy may be invalid under residual-clause reasoning | Government: substantive Hobbs Act robbery as charged involved actual/threatened force and thus meets § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause | Substantive Hobbs Act robbery counts (and related § 924(c) convictions) still qualify under the elements clause and remain valid |
| Whether district courts must require proof the sentencing judge explicitly relied on the residual clause | Chance: court should assess statutory meaning categorically; not require proof of judge’s mental reliance or magic words | Some Eleventh Circuit dicta (Moore) suggested district courts “must” determine whether the sentence was imposed under the residual clause and demand proof | Panel rejects Moore’s dicta: district courts should apply the categorical approach and governing precedent (Descamps, Mathis) de novo; no need to show the sentencing judge uttered "residual clause" |
| Proper standard of review for the district court on a § 2255 filed after authorization | Chance: district court must hear parties and apply current binding law de novo | Government: none novel asserted beyond applying controlling precedent | District court must decide all issues de novo; its determinations are reviewable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual-clause holding of vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1259 (2016) (Johnson held retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical approach guidance for determining whether an offense qualifies as a predicate)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (further defining and applying the categorical approach)
- Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293 (1978) (concurrent sentence doctrine and interest in separate convictions)
- Jordan v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court must decide habeas issues de novo)
- Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (1994) (authoritative judicial construction of statutes binds lower courts)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (discusses the rarity and significance of courts making new rules retroactive on collateral review)