In re: Edward Thomas
823 F.3d 1345
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Edward Thomas sought authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his ACCA-based sentence.
- Thomas’s ACCA enhancement rested on a 1967 Florida breaking-and-entering conviction plus 1980 and 1986 armed-robbery convictions. He contended the 1967 burglary predicate is invalid under Johnson and Descamps.
- Johnson held the ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness; Welch held Johnson’s substantive rule is retroactive on collateral review.
- Descamps clarified limits on the modified categorical approach, holding it applies only when a statute is divisible; Thomas argued Descamps created a new retroactive constitutional rule.
- The panel required a prima facie showing that (1) the motion relies on a new retroactive constitutional rule or newly discovered evidence, and (2) the movant falls within that rule’s scope.
- The panel found Thomas failed to make the requisite prima facie showing because (a) Descamps is statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule, and (b) even without the ACCA residual clause Thomas still had three qualifying predicates (two armed-robbery convictions under the elements clause and the 1967 burglary found to be generic burglary under the enumerated-offense clause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas may file a successive § 2255 based on Johnson | Johnson announced a new retroactive rule that voids his ACCA enhancement because his 1967 burglary depended on the residual clause | Even if Johnson is retroactive, the enhancement did not rely on the residual clause; Thomas has three valid predicates | Denied — Thomas failed to make a prima facie showing under § 2255(h) because his enhancement stands without the residual clause |
| Whether Descamps announced a new retroactive constitutional rule | Descamps prevents using the modified categorical approach for Florida burglary, making Thomas’s predicate invalid | Descamps is statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule; it is not a basis for § 2255(h)(2) relief | Denied — Descamps is not a new constitutional rule entitled to retroactive application under § 2255(h)(2) |
| Whether the 1967 breaking-and-entering conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate | Thomas: the conviction is nongeneric and thus not an ACCA burglary predicate post-Descamps | Government: district court found it qualified as generic burglary under Taylor (enumerated clause); plus two armed-robbery predicates exist | Denied — district court relied on the enumerated-offense analysis (Taylor); armed-robbery convictions satisfy the elements clause, so three predicates exist |
| Whether the application satisfied the prima facie standard of § 2244(b)(3)(C) | Thomas: identifying Johnson/Descamps suffices to warrant authorization to file | Government: applicant must show he falls within the new rule’s scope, not merely identify the rule | Denied — Thomas did not proffer sufficient factual showing to meet the prima facie threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie threshold for successive petitions under § 2244(b)(3)(C))
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defining generic burglary for ACCA and when a court may find a conviction matches generic burglary)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (holds modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Weeks v. United States, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (pre-Descamps treatment of Florida burglary under ACCA)
- Owens v. United States, 672 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2012) (discussion of ACCA elements, enumerated, and residual clauses)