829 F.3d 1287
11th Cir.2016Background
- Sheldon Watt sought authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his federal sentence.
- Watt argued his § 924(c) conviction (using a firearm in furtherance of assault with intent to rob a postal employee) was invalid under Johnson v. United States, which struck down the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- The question was whether Johnson's holding applies to the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) and thus undermines Watt’s § 924(c) conviction.
- Watt’s conviction rested on an indictment charging he and a codefendant assaulted the postmaster with intent to rob her, put her life in jeopardy, and used a firearm; aiding-and-abetting liability applies equally to principals.
- The presentence report (adopted by the district court without objection) described Watt pointing a gun, reloading, threatening the victim, forcing her to lie on the floor, and fleeing — facts supporting that the underlying offense involved the use or threatened use of physical force.
- The Eleventh Circuit required a prima facie showing that the successive application satisfied § 2255(h); it concluded Watt failed that threshold showing and denied authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates Watt’s § 924(c) conviction by attacking § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause | Johnson’s rule on vagueness should be extended to § 924(c)(3)(B), making Watt’s underlying offense not a crime of violence | Johnson did not address § 924(c), and even if § 924(c)(3)(B) were invalid, Watt’s underlying offense qualifies under the elements clause | Denied — Johnson does not help Watt; underlying offense indisputably involves use/threatened use of physical force, so no prima facie showing under § 2255(h) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (explains appellate threshold for authorizing successive § 2255 applications)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (describes three clauses of "violent felony" definitions)
- United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (assault of a postal employee is a crime of violence)