In re: Tracy Garrett, 908 F.3d 686

Tracy Garrett is serving 480 months after convictions for two carjackings, two bank robberies, and two § 924(c) firearms counts; most of his sentence is from consecutive § 924(c) terms.
Garrett has repeatedly (13th application) sought leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in the Eleventh Circuit; twelve prior requests were denied.
He challenges the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson and Dimaya, asserting that those cases create a new, retroactive rule permitting collateral relief.
The Eleventh Circuit decided en banc in Ovalles that § 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague because it uses a conduct-based (not categorical) approach; that decision postdates Garrett’s sentencing.
Garrett also raises other claims (indictment form inconsistency, suppression/appeal errors, and denial of his first § 2255), which are neither new evidence nor based on a newly made-retroactive constitutional rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson/Dimaya render § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague	Johnson and Dimaya create a new, retroactive rule invalidating § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause	Ovalles controls: § 924(c)(3)(B) uses a conduct-based approach and is not vague	Denied — Johnson/Dimaya do not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B); Ovalles blocks successive relief
Whether Garrett may file a second or successive § 2255 based on Johnson rule	Garrett invokes Johnson (made retroactive by Welch) to obtain leave	Statutory gatekeeping: § 2255(h) requires a new rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court that applies; Ovalles shows no such rule for § 924(c)	Denied — statutory standard not met because Johnson/Dimaya do not apply to § 924(c)
Whether change in circuit interpretation (categorical → conduct-based) is a new constitutional rule	Garrett argues prior categorical interpretation affected his sentence	Court: a reinterpretation of a statute is not a new rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2)	Denied — reinterpretation is not a new retroactive constitutional rule
Whether Garrett’s other claims (indictment form, suppression, appellate review) justify successive relief	Garrett asserts due process violations and appellate errors warrant relief	Claims are not based on new evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule; many are repetitive of prior applications	Dismissed as repetitive and denied for failure to meet § 2255(h) criteria

Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (holds § 924(c)(3)(B) is not vague because it permits a conduct-based inquiry)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutional as void for vagueness)
Dimaya v. Lynch, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (held INA residual clause unconstitutional; discussed categorical approach issues)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (made Johnson’s new rule retroactive to cases on collateral review)
McGuire v. United States, 706 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2013) (prior Eleventh Circuit precedent applying a categorical approach to § 924(c))
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (example that statutory reinterpretation does not necessarily create a new constitutional rule)
Gray-Bey v. United States, 209 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2000) (explains that a change in statutory interpretation is not a new constitutional rule for § 2255 purposes)
In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) (discusses dismissal of repetitive second or successive § 2255 applications)