In re: Marvin Griffin
823 F.3d 1350
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marvin Griffin was convicted in 1998 of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and received a 360-month sentence after the district court applied the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender enhancement based on prior Florida convictions for burglary of a dwelling (1984) and robbery (1986).
- The PSI described the robbery as a violent struggle in which Griffin tore a victim’s bag free and fled; the PSI and district court listed burglary and robbery as the two predicate convictions supporting career-offender status.
- On direct appeal Griffin challenged career-offender status and other issues; this Court affirmed. Griffin’s first § 2255 motion (ineffective assistance) was denied.
- Griffin sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion asserting two new-rule claims: (1) Johnson-based vagueness challenge to the Guidelines’ residual clause (arguing parity with ACCA), and (2) a Descamps-based challenge that his burglary statute is indivisible so the modified categorical approach cannot be used to classify the prior burglary as a predicate.
- The Eleventh Circuit must grant leave for a second/successive § 2255 only if the applicant makes a prima facie showing that the motion relies on (a) newly discovered evidence establishing innocence, or (b) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of ACCA’s residual clause permits a successive § 2255 to challenge the Guidelines’ residual clause | Griffin: Johnson’s vagueness holding applies identically to the Guidelines’ residual clause, so his career-offender enhancement is invalid | Government: Johnson and Welch apply to ACCA statutory sentencing increases, not to (mandatory or advisory) Guidelines calculations; circuit precedent forecloses vagueness challenges to the Guidelines | Denied — Griffin failed to make a prima facie showing; Eleventh Circuit follows Matchett that the Guidelines’ residual clause is not subject to Johnson vagueness relief for successive § 2255s |
| Whether Descamps announced a new constitutional rule that permits a successive § 2255 attacking the use of the modified categorical approach for Griffin’s burglary predicate | Griffin: Descamps precludes applying the modified categorical approach to an indivisible burglary statute, so his prior burglary cannot be a predicate | Government: Descamps is statutory-interpretation guidance, not a new constitutional rule making it inapplicable as a basis for successive § 2255 relief | Denied — Descamps is not a new rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2); Griffin did not make the required prima facie showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (ACCA residual-clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding vagueness doctrine does not invalidate the Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (clarified limits of the modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (Descamps is not a new rule; its clarification operates retroactively in initial § 2255 but is not a new constitutional rule for successive petitions)