In re: Ernest David Keys v.
692 F. App'x 92
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Ernest David Keys pleaded guilty in 2007 to robbery-related offenses and was sentenced to 151 months as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (residual clause).
- Keys waived appellate and collateral-review rights; the Government successfully enforced the appellate waiver on direct appeal.
- Keys filed a § 2255 motion in 2013; the District Court denied it in 2015. He later sought to amend based on Johnson v. United States (2015).
- Counsel sought authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file a second/successive § 2255 raising a Johnson-based challenge to § 4B1.2(a)(2); proceedings were stayed pending resolution of related Supreme Court decisions (notably Beckles).
- Keys filed a pro se mandamus petition asking the Third Circuit to compel the District Court to rule on his § 2255 claim; while that petition was pending, appointed counsel withdrew the protective § 2255 motion and the District Court dismissed it.
- The District Court also denied Keys’s Mathis-related filings and concluded that Beckles foreclosed a Johnson-type vagueness challenge to the Guidelines’ residual clause; Keys’s mandamus petition and emergency hearing motion were therefore moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the District Court to rule on Keys’s § 2255 claim | Keys argued the stay pending Beckles was unnecessary and the District Court should decide his Johnson-based § 2255 motion now | District Court (and Government) relied on ongoing procedural posture and controlling decisions (including Beckles) to justify staying/deferring final action; counsel later withdrew the motion | Denied as moot—the District Court dismissed the pending § 2255 motion after counsel’s withdrawal, so mandamus relief was no longer needed |
| Whether Keys’s § 4B1.2(a)(2) enhancement is invalid under Johnson | Keys contended § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause is identical to ACCA’s and void for vagueness under Johnson | Respondents relied on Beckles, holding the Guidelines’ advisory residual clause is not subject to vagueness challenge; thus enhancement stands | Beckles foreclosed a Johnson-based vagueness attack on the Guidelines’ residual clause; District Court rulings rejecting relief stand |
| Whether an emergency hearing is warranted on Keys’s Mathis-based arguments | Keys sought an emergency hearing and resentencing based on Mathis (categorical approach issues) | District Court treated attempts to relitigate sentencing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 and found Mathis-based relief futile in light of Beckles | Emergency hearing denied as moot; mandamus is not a substitute for appeal |
| Whether mandamus can substitute for appeal when disagreeing with District Court rulings | Keys sought mandamus instead of pursuing appeal remedies | Court noted mandamus is extraordinary and cannot replace normal appellate review | Mandamus denied; avenue is appeal, not mandamus, and matter was moot in any event |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual-clause vagueness holding)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines’ residual clause not subject to vagueness challenge)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach for determining predicate offenses)
- Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) (mootness doctrine principles)
- In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mandamus is not a substitute for appeal)