In re Patrick
833 F.3d 584
6th Cir.2016Background
- Patrick, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2002 to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine and cocaine base.
- District court sentenced him to 262 months as a career offender based on prior Tennessee offenses including a controlled-substance offense, reckless aggravated assault, and evading arrest.
- Patrick’s first §2255 motion was denied and a COA was denied on appeal.
- In 2010, Patrick challenged his conviction via a §2241 petition arguing his reckless aggravated assault conviction no longer qualified as a crime of violence under Begay and Baker; the district court denied, and we affirmed.
- Patrick now seeks authorization to file a second or successive §2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255(h) and related provisions.
- The court grants authorization to file a second or successive §2255 petition and transfers the case to hold in abeyance pending Supreme Court resolution in Beckles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Johnson retroactive to the Guidelines residual clause? | Patrick: Johnson applies retroactively to the Guidelines. | Government: Johnson's rule is procedural for the Guidelines and not retroactive. | Johnson is substantive and retroactive to the Guidelines. |
| Does Johnson’s application to the Guidelines satisfy the prima facie standard for a second or successive §2255? | Patrick shows a new constitutional rule retroactive on collateral review. | Government argues retroactivity is not warranted for the Guidelines. | Patrick adequately establishes a prima facie showing of merit for a second or successive petition. |
| Should the case be transferred and held in abeyance pending Beckles to resolve retroactivity questions? | Patrick seeks resolution of retroactivity questions before further proceedings. | Beckles will resolve the retroactivity issues; meanwhile, proceeding is stayed. | Case transferred and held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court decision in Beckles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause; foundational for retroactivity argument)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (retroactivity of Johnson; substantive rule in Teague framework)
- Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016) (Guidelines residual clause invalidated; applies Johnson reasoning to Guidelines)
- Hubbard, 825 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2016) (retroactivity of Johnson to Guidelines; supports substantive characterization)
- In re Watkins, 810 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2015) (prima facie standard for second or successive petitions; broader guidance)
- In re Lott, 366 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2004) (prima facie showing standard for §2255(h) applications (quoting standard))