In re: Gary Baptiste
828 F.3d 1337
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gary Baptiste seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion attacking his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(o).
- Baptiste argues Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States render the residual clause in § 924(c) unconstitutionally vague and thus entitle him to relief.
- This is Baptiste’s second application raising substantially the same Johnson-based claim; the Eleventh Circuit previously denied his first application on the merits.
- The prior decision concluded Baptiste’s § 924(c) conviction rested on a drug trafficking offense (conspiracy to rob cocaine from a stash house), a characterization reflected in the PSI and written judgment and not challenged by Baptiste at sentencing or on direct appeal.
- The panel concluded the present filing is repetitious under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and is therefore subject to mandatory dismissal; alternatively, the law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of the same claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson and Welch render § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutional as applied to Baptiste | Baptiste: Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to § 924(c), so his § 924(c)/§ 924(o) convictions are invalid | Government: Baptiste’s predicate was a drug trafficking offense, not a “crime of violence,” and Johnson does not affect the definition of drug trafficking crime | Denied — claim previously rejected; Johnson does not aid Baptiste because his conviction rested on a drug trafficking predicate |
| Whether the court may consider a second or successive application that reasserts a previously rejected claim | Baptiste: Requests reconsideration, contending prior ruling was incorrect | Government: § 2244(b)(1) mandates dismissal of claims presented in a prior application; § 2244(b)(3)(E) bars rehearing via successive applications | Denied — statute requires dismissal of repetitious filings; court lacks discretion to entertain the same claim |
| Whether law-of-the-case or exceptions permit rehearing of prior denial | Baptiste: Asserts prior decision was erroneous and seeks reconsideration | Government: No new evidence, no intervening controlling authority, and prior ruling not clearly erroneous | Denied — law-of-the-case applies; Baptiste failed to meet any exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson error is retroactive on collateral review)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (repetitious habeas claims must be dismissed)
- United States v. Quirante, 486 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2007) (’shall’ in statute denotes mandatory duty)
- In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (discussing law-of-the-case and exceptions)
- Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2002) (applied § 2244(b)(1) standards to federal § 2255 applications)