In re: Jasper Moore
830 F.3d 1268
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jasper Moore filed consolidated counseled and pro se applications under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) seeking leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States.
- Moore contends his ACCA sentence was improperly enhanced under the ACCA residual clause because his prior Florida convictions (burglary, robbery, armed robbery) no longer qualify as violent felonies after Johnson.
- Johnson held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Welch later made Johnson retroactive on collateral review.
- The Eleventh Circuit requires an applicant to make a prima facie showing that the new rule applies to his convictions before authorizing a successive § 2255 motion, but the district court must decide § 2255(h) issues de novo if the motion is filed.
- The panel found Moore made a prima facie showing that he falls within Johnson’s scope because it is unclear which prior convictions the district court relied on as the third ACCA predicate and whether the residual clause was used.
- The court granted authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion but emphasized the district court must determine anew whether the residual clause was used and whether Moore bears his burden to prove entitlement to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore may file a second/successive § 2255 based on Johnson | Moore: Johnson invalidates the ACCA residual clause that enhanced his sentence, so he qualifies for authorization | Gov: (implicitly) Moore must show his sentence actually depended on the residual clause before authorization | Court: Authorized filing — Moore made a prima facie showing that Johnson may apply because it’s unclear which predicate or clause was relied upon |
| Standard for appellate authorization to file successive § 2255 | Moore: identification of Johnson as basis suffices for authorization | Gov: authorization requires showing the new rule actually applies to movant’s sentence | Court: Prima facie showing required; this panel’s grant is a limited threshold determination; district court decides de novo |
| Burden of proof on § 2255 merits | Moore: seeks relief asserting residual-clause reliance | Gov: movant must prove entitlement to relief on the merits | Court: Movant bears burden to prove sentencing relied on residual clause and that it affected sentence; if district cannot determine that, relief must be denied |
| Effect of Welch and possibility of alternative ACCA clauses | Moore: Johnson/Welch render residual clause invalid and retroactive | Gov: courts can re-assess whether predicate convictions qualify under other ACCA clauses | Court: Even if residual clause was used, district court must consider whether convictions qualify under elements clause or enumerated crimes per Welch |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (invalidating ACCA residual clause for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (holding Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (court of appeals’ prima facie finding is threshold; district court decides § 2255(h) issues de novo)
- In re Robinson, 822 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2016) (recognizing Johnson/Welch permit successive § 2255 motions when residual-clause reliance is shown)
- In re Moss, 703 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2013) (granted-authorize determination is limited; district court must decide § 2255 statutory requirements afresh)
- United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussing predicate-offense classification under ACCA)
- Rivers v. United States, 777 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2015) (movant bears burden to prove § 2255 claims on the merits)
- LeCroy v. United States, 739 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2014) (reiterating movant’s burden in § 2255 proceedings)