In re: Joseph Rogers, Jr.
825 F.3d 1335
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joseph Rogers, Jr. seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his ACCA enhancement as void under Johnson v. United States.
- Rogers was sentenced under the ACCA based on three prior convictions: Florida aggravated battery (Fla. Stat. § 784.045), Florida aggravated assault (Fla. Stat. § 784.021), and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)).
- Johnson held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Welch held Johnson retroactive on collateral review.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), a second-or-successive motion must be certified by a court of appeals as meeting narrow criteria (new rule retroactive or newly discovered evidence).
- The Eleventh Circuit applies a “clear-or-unclear” gatekeeping test (derived from In re Adams, In re Hires, and In re Thomas): deny only if it is clear the successive motion does not "contain" a Johnson claim.
- Circuit precedent (Turner and related decisions) has previously held that Florida aggravated assault and aggravated battery categorically qualify under the ACCA elements clause.
Issues
| Issue | Rogers' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers' proposed successive § 2255 motion "contains" a Johnson claim | Rogers argues his ACCA enhancement depended on the residual clause and Johnson invalidates the enhancement for his Florida convictions | The sentencing predicates (aggravated assault and battery) categorically qualify under the ACCA elements clause, so Johnson is not implicated | Denied — Rogers did not make a prima facie showing because binding precedent classifies his Florida convictions as elements-clause predicates |
| Whether the panel should apply Descamps and other precedent at the gatekeeping stage | Rogers contends Descamps and post-Johnson precedent can show the predicates fail the elements/enumerated analysis | The court explains Descamps applies when record/precedent leave unclear whether predicates rest on the residual clause, but need not be applied where binding precedent already classifies the offenses | Court applies the "clear-or-unclear" framework: Descamps used only when necessary; not needed here because Turner resolves the issue |
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 retroactive on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explained categorical approach and divisibility rule for predicate-offense analysis)
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (held Florida aggravated assault/battery qualify under ACCA elements clause)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment and requirement that facts increasing sentence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Lambrix v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply when controlling authority has since made a contrary decision)
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining the limited, prima facie nature of the court-of-appeals gatekeeping role)