In re Hines
824 F.3d 1334
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Charles Milton Hines seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his § 924(c) conviction (Count 2) based on Johnson v. United States.
- Hines was convicted of armed bank robbery (Count 1), use of a firearm during that robbery (§ 924(c), Count 2), possession of an unregistered firearm (Count 3), and felon-in-possession (Count 4); the § 924(c) sentence was 300 months consecutive to other terms.
- He argues Johnson’s holding that the ACCA residual clause is void for vagueness means the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is also unconstitutional, invalidating his § 924(c) conviction.
- The panel applied the prima facie threshold under § 2244(b)(3)(C): an applicant must do more than cite Johnson; they must show they fall within the new rule’s scope.
- The panel concluded Hines’s § 924(c) conviction rests on the Count 1 armed bank robbery predicate, which satisfies § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements (use/threatened use of physical force), so Johnson would not render his § 924(c) conviction invalid.
- Result: the court denied authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion because Hines failed to make the required prima facie showing.
Issues
| Issue | Hines's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause authorizes a successive § 2255 to attack a § 924(c) conviction | Johnson voids § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause; thus Hines’s § 924(c) conviction is unconstitutional | Even if § 924(c)(3)(B) is invalid, Hines’s § 924(c) conviction is based on an underlying armed bank robbery that meets § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause | Denied: Hines failed to make a prima facie showing because the predicate offense satisfies the elements clause, so § 924(c) stands |
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 announces a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (explains appellate gatekeeping under § 2244(b)(3)(C) is a prima facie threshold)
- In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (applicant must proffer detailed evidence to satisfy prima facie showing for successive relief)
- In re Pinder, 824 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (discusses § 924(c) challenges where predicate was conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery)