In re: Encinias
821 F.3d 1224
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jason Encinias seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his career-offender sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- He contends one or more predicate felonies used to classify him as a career offender relied on the Guidelines’ residual clause for “crime of violence.”
- Encinias relies on Johnson v. United States, arguing the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; the Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive in Welch.
- To obtain authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), Encinias must make a prima facie showing the claim relies on a new constitutional rule made retroactive, per the gatekeeping language in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C).
- The Tenth Circuit previously held in United States v. Madrid that Johnson’s reasoning applies to the Guidelines’ residual clause; circuits are split on that application but trend toward Madrid’s view.
- The court concluded, on an expedited prima facie assessment, that Encinias’ challenge is sufficiently based on Johnson to warrant authorization and granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Encinias may obtain authorization to file a second/successive §2255 alleging the Guidelines’ residual clause is unconstitutional under Johnson | Encinias: his career-offender designation rested on predicates qualifying under the Guidelines’ residual clause and thus his claim is based on Johnson, which Welch made retroactive | Government: implicit argument that Johnson applies to ACCA and not necessarily to the Guidelines; circuits are split on applying Johnson to the Guidelines | Granted — Tenth Circuit concluded, on prima facie review, the claim is based on Johnson and authorized the successive §2255 filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (applied Johnson’s reasoning to the Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (explained post-Booker Guidelines can have binding legal effect and be subject to constitutional challenge)