In Re: James Howard Sams
830 F.3d 1234
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- James Howard Sams 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 for bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and a related § 924(c) firearm conviction; he was sentenced to 240 months (§ 2113) plus 84 months consecutive (§ 924(c)).
- Sams alleges ineffective assistance, indictment and prosecutorial defects, juror misconduct, Booker error, and that his § 924(c) and career-offender enhancement are invalid because his predicate offenses are not "crimes of violence."
- He invokes Johnson v. United States and Welch to argue a new rule of constitutional law, and relies on Brown and Alleyne as "newly discovered evidence" showing he never possessed a firearm.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews only whether Sams makes a prima facie showing that his proposed successive petition meets § 2255(h) (new rule retroactive or newly discovered evidence) and § 2244(b)(3)(C).
- The panel analyzes (1) whether bank robbery under § 2113(a) qualifies as a "crime of violence" for § 924(c) purposes post‑Johnson; (2) whether Johnson/Welch undermine Sams’s career‑offender sentencing under the Guidelines; and (3) whether Alleyne, Brown, Booker, or Alleyne-based arguments provide newly discovered evidence or a Supreme Court-made-retroactive rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sams may obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 based on Johnson/Welch to attack his § 924(c) conviction | Johnson/Welch invalidate the residual clause that could have supported treating his § 2113(a) predicate as a crime of violence, so his § 924(c) conviction is vulnerable | Bank robbery under § 2113(a) necessarily involves use/attempted use/threatened use of physical force and thus qualifies under the § 924(c)(3)(A) use‑of‑force clause; Johnson does not help | Denied: Sams failed to make a prima facie showing because § 2113(a) bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Whether Sams’s career‑offender enhancement is invalid under Johnson | Johnson invalidates residual clauses, so the Guidelines residual clause cannot support the career‑offender classification | Precedent (Matchett, In re Griffin) rejects vagueness attacks on the Guidelines; Sams had qualifying robbery predicates that fit the Guidelines’ enumerated crimes clause | Denied: Johnson/Welch do not afford relief; robbery predicates categorically qualify so career‑offender status stands |
| Whether Alleyne, Brown, or other authority constitute newly discovered evidence of factual innocence (no firearm possession) | No weapon was recovered and district rulings (Brown) and Alleyne support that the firearm element was improperly applied, showing factual innocence | Brown is a district opinion and Alleyne is not shown to be made retroactive by the Supreme Court; these are not newly discovered evidence establishing innocence | Denied: Sams did not show newly discovered evidence proving actual innocence; Alleyne/Brown do not make his claim eligible for successive relief |
| Whether Booker or Alleyne create new constitutional rules retroactive on collateral review to justify a successive § 2255 | Booker/Alleyne allegedly changed sentencing-law rules that retroactively invalidate Sams’s sentencing and guidelines treatment | Booker and Alleyne were direct‑appeal decisions and have not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court for successive § 2255 purposes; Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses retroactivity here | Denied: Booker and Alleyne do not supply a Supreme Court‑made‑retroactive rule under § 2255(h)(2); Sams’s claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016) (held Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (held that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held mandatory sentencing guidelines unconstitutional; guidelines are advisory)
- Matchett v. United States, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (rejected vagueness‑based attack on the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause)
- In re Robinson, 822 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2016) (procedural discussion on who may file successive § 2255 after Johnson)
- McNeal v. United States, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2016) (held bank robbery under § 2113(a) satisfies § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause)
- United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 1995) (construed "by intimidation" language as encompassing threatened use of force)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative in defining terms like "crime of violence")
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (explains that the Supreme Court must make a new rule retroactive for successive collateral relief)