In re: Leonard Sapp
827 F.3d 1334
11th Cir.2016Background
- Leonard Sapp, sentenced in 2003 as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, sought authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
- Sapp’s proposed claim relied on Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States, arguing the career-offender enhancement (residual clause) is unconstitutionally vague.
- The panel must determine whether Sapp made a prima facie showing that his successive § 2255 motion satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (new rule of constitutional law made retroactive or newly discovered evidence).
- The Eleventh Circuit had precedent (United States v. Matchett and In re Griffin) holding that Johnson does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause (Matchett for advisory Guidelines; Griffin extended that reasoning to mandatory Guidelines).
- The panel denied Sapp’s application because Griffin controls and he failed to show that Johnson/Welch made a cognizable, retroactive challenge to the mandatory Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to the career-offender Guideline residual clause | Sapp: Johnson (and Welch) render the Guideline residual clause unconstitutional and retroactive, so he can pursue a successive § 2255 | Government: Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses applying Johnson to the Guidelines; Sapp cannot make the § 2255(h) prima facie showing | Denied — binding Eleventh Circuit precedent (Griffin/Matchett) controls; Sapp failed to make the required prima facie showing |
| Whether Welch’s retroactivity holding makes Johnson available for Guidelines challenges | Sapp: Welch makes Johnson retroactive to collateral review, so it covers his Guidelines claim | Government: Even if Welch makes Johnson retroactive generally, Eleventh Circuit precedent says it does not create a basis for Guidelines challenges | Denied — court follows Griffin’s conclusion that Welch does not make Johnson retroactive for mandatory Guidelines challenges |
| Whether Matchett/Griffin correctly distinguish mandatory vs. advisory Guidelines for vagueness analysis | Sapp: (implicit) mandatory Guidelines should be subject to Johnson’s vagueness rule | Government: Matchett/Griffin control; advisory/mandatory distinction bars Johnson-based collateral relief | Court applied existing precedent (Griffin) and denied relief; concurrence criticizes Griffin as wrongly decided |
| Whether Sapp made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) | Sapp: Johnson/Welch satisfy § 2255(h)(2) (new rule made retroactive) | Government: No prima facie showing because Griffin/Matchett foreclose the claim | Denied — no prima facie showing; authorization to file successive § 2255 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (held Johnson’s vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory Guidelines)
- In re Griffin, 823 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2016) (applied Matchett to mandatory Guidelines; held Johnson/Welch do not authorize successive § 2255 challenges to Guideline residual clause)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held mandatory Guidelines unconstitutional; rendered Guidelines advisory)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (affirmed broad sentencing discretion post-Booker)
- United States v. Oliver, 20 F.3d 415 (11th Cir. 1994) (analyzed ACCA and career-offender residual clauses using same framework)
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting near-identity of ACCA and career-offender definitions)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (explaining substantive vs. procedural rule distinction for retroactivity)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishing substantive rules that apply retroactively from procedural rules)
Concurrence: Judges Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Pryor agreed the application should be denied but wrote separately arguing Griffin is wrongly decided and that Johnson and Welch should apply to the mandatory career-offender Guideline.