934 F.3d 296
3d Cir.2019Background
- Five petitioners (Matthews, Dupree, Williams, Smith, McNeill) convicted of § 924(c) offenses tied to various robberies; each sentenced to consecutive terms on § 924(c) counts.
- § 924(c)(3) defines "crime of violence" via an elements clause (A) and a residual clause (B); petitioners challenge the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- After briefing and argument, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, which held § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional, making these petitions timely under Davis.
- Each petitioner sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion under the AEDPA gatekeeping provision § 2244(b)(2)(A) (new rule made retroactive).
- The Government argued some petitioners’ predicate offenses might qualify under the elements clause, making relief futile; the court treated that as a merits issue for the district courts.
- The Third Circuit held the petitioners made the required prima facie showing and authorized all five § 2255 motions (and similarly stayed applications downstream).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners satisfy § 2244 gatekeeping to file second/successive § 2255 motions based on Davis | Davis announced a new constitutional rule invalidating § 924(c)(3)(B); claim is retroactive and previously unavailable | Govt: some petitioners’ predicates may still qualify under § 924(c)(3)(A), so authorization would be futile | Authorized: petitioners made a prima facie showing; merits (elements vs residual) is for district court review |
| Whether Davis renders petitions timely | Davis struck down residual clause, making claims timely under AEDPA | None contest timeliness given Davis | Conceded timely under Davis; court relies on that concession |
| Whether courts should resolve whether predicate offenses fall under elements clause at authorization stage | Petitioners: authorization appropriate; merits left for district court | Govt: deny authorization as futile for some petitioners whose predicates qualify under elements clause | Court: decline to decide merits now; authorization not inappropriate at this juncture |
| Scope of authorization for other stayed applications | Petitioners asked to lift stay for ~200 similar applications | Govt implicitly opposed broad authorization absent merits review | Court: will authorize those applications as well for district-court consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (held similarly that a residual clause in a federal statute was unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (rendered Guidelines advisory)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (describing AEDPA gatekeeping for successive petitions)
- In re Hoffner, 870 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2017) (discussing § 2244 gatekeeping and authorization standard)
- United States v. Peppers, 899 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining prima facie standard and merits separation)
- In re Pendleton, 732 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (prima facie showing defined as sufficient to warrant fuller exploration)