In Re: Earl Burgest
829 F.3d 1285
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Earl Burgest seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his federal sentence.
- Burgest contends his career-offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2(a)) relied on the Guidelines’ residual clause, which he argues is invalid under Johnson v. United States.
- The enhancement was based on two prior Florida convictions: manslaughter and kidnapping.
- The Eleventh Circuit must determine whether Burgest makes a prima facie showing that his proposed successive § 2255 motion satisfies the statutory standards (new rule of constitutional law made retroactive or newly discovered evidence).
- The panel evaluates (1) whether Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to the Guidelines and (2) whether Burgest’s priors qualify as crimes of violence independent of the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burgest may base a successive § 2255 on Johnson as applied to the Guidelines | Johnson invalidates the Guidelines’ residual clause, so Burgest’s career-offender enhancement is unconstitutional | Johnson does not apply to the Guidelines for purposes of authorizing a successive § 2255; binding Eleventh Circuit precedent controls | Denied — Johnson does not furnish authorization under Eleventh Circuit precedent to file a successive § 2255 attacking the Guidelines’ residual clause |
| If Johnson applied to the Guidelines, whether Burgest’s prior convictions still qualify as crimes of violence | Johnson would invalidate the residual clause and thus undo Burgest’s enhancement | Manslaughter and kidnapping are categorically crimes of violence and listed in the Guidelines commentary | Denied — even assuming Johnson applies, manslaughter and kidnapping are crimes of violence under the elements/enumerated clauses, so enhancement stands |
| Whether the court should authorize filing of a second or successive § 2255 | Burgest argues he meets § 2255(h) because Johnson is a new substantive rule made retroactive | The court relies on binding circuit precedent that Johnson does not authorize successive § 2255 motions attacking the Guidelines | Denied — Burgest failed to make a prima facie showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) |
| Whether Guidelines commentary can be authoritative to classify crimes of violence | Burgest disputes reliance on commentary to classify his priors | Court cites Stinson and precedent treating Guidelines commentary as authoritative | Held — Guidelines commentary listing manslaughter and kidnapping controls; they are crimes of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Jordan v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs., 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (explains prima facie threshold for successive habeas authorization)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (discusses ACCA clauses and their application)
- United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) (requires following binding circuit precedent until overruled)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (treats Guidelines commentary as authoritative for interpreting the Guidelines)
- United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2013) (applies Stinson to treat Guidelines commentary as controlling)
APPLICATION DENIED.