964 F.3d 1045
11th Cir.2020Background
- Michael Price was indicted on multiple counts: two bank robberies (Counts 1 & 4), two conspiracies to commit bank robbery (Counts 2 & 5), two §924(c) firearm-in-furtherance counts (Counts 3 & 6), and one felon-in-possession §922(g) count (Count 7); the jury convicted on all counts except Count 2.
- Sentence totaled 624 months: concurrent terms (including 240 months for the robberies and §922(g)) plus consecutive terms of 84 months (Count 3) and 300 months (Count 6) for the §924(c) convictions.
- The indictment listed both bank robbery and conspiracy as possible predicates for each §924(c) count, but the district-court jury instructions required the jury to find guilt on each §924(c) charge only if it found guilt on the corresponding bank-robbery count.
- Price previously filed a §2255 motion (raising Johnson-based challenges) that was denied; he seeks authorization to file a second/successive §2255 raising two new claims based on Davis and Rehaif.
- Davis claim: Price argues ambiguity in the indictment means his §924(c) convictions might rest on conspiracy (which he contends is not a crime of violence after Davis). Rehaif claim: Price argues the government failed to prove he knew his status as a prohibited person when convicted under §922(g).
- The Eleventh Circuit denied authorization to file a successive §2255: it found no prima facie Davis claim because jury instructions and verdicts show the §924(c) convictions were predicated on bank robbery (a crime of violence), and it rejected the Rehaif claim under circuit precedent that Rehaif is not retroactive on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of §924(c) convictions after Davis | Price: indictment ambiguous; convictions may rest on conspiracy, which post-Davis is not a crime of violence | Government: jury instructions required §924(c) convictions to be predicated on the bank-robbery counts; jury found robberies; bank robbery is a crime of violence | Denied — no prima facie Davis claim because juries are presumed to follow instructions and bank robbery served as the predicate |
| Applicability of Rehaif to §922(g) conviction on collateral review | Price: government failed to prove he knew he was a prohibited person, so Rehaif entitles him to relief | Government: Rehaif does not announce a new, retroactive rule applicable on collateral review under controlling circuit precedent | Denied — Rehaif is not retroactive for second/successive §2255 in this circuit per prior Eleventh Circuit rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (held government must prove defendant knew he belonged to a prohibited class under §922(g))
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (voided ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (applied vagueness doctrine to a similar residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- In re Hammoud, 931 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2019) (held Davis announces a new substantive rule and is retroactive)
- In re Dailey, 949 F.3d 553 (11th Cir. 2020) (explained prima facie showing requirement for successive Davis claims)
- In re Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2019) (authorized successive §2255 when predicate ambiguity could implicate Davis)
- In re Gomez, 830 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (authorized successive relief where predicate uncertainty existed)
- In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2016) (held bank robbery is a crime of violence under §924(c) elements clause)
- In re Palacios, 931 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2019) (held Rehaif did not announce a new retroactive rule for collateral review)