In Re: William Hunt
835 F.3d 1277
11th Cir.2016Background
- William Hunt seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming Johnson v. United States invalidates his § 924(c) conviction and his advisory Guidelines enhancement.
- Hunt’s § 924(c) conviction arose from an armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
- Johnson held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague; Hunt argues § 924(c)’s and the Guidelines’ residual clauses are similar and thus void.
- This Eleventh Circuit panel follows In re Hines, which found armed bank robbery qualifies under § 924(c)’s elements clause (not the residual clause) when the record shows force, assault, and use of a dangerous weapon.
- The panel also follows United States v. Matchett, which held Johnson’s void-for-vagueness rule does not apply to advisory Guidelines; the court notes Beckles (cert. granted) could alter Matchett.
- Result: Hunt’s application to file is denied without prejudice, with leave to reapply if Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Beckles) change the controlling law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunt’s § 924(c) conviction is invalid under Johnson because it relied on § 924(c)’s residual clause | Hunt: armed bank robbery qualified as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s residual clause, so Johnson voids the conviction | Court (defense of status quo): In re Hines controls; the record shows elements of armed bank robbery that satisfy § 924(c)’s elements clause, so Johnson’s residual-clause holding is inapplicable | Denied — Hines establishes the offense fits the elements clause, not the residual clause; Johnson does not invalidate the § 924(c) conviction now |
| Whether Johnson invalidates Hunt’s advisory Guidelines career-offender enhancement | Hunt: the career-offender Guideline’s residual clause is like ACCA’s and thus void under Johnson | Court (relying on Matchett): Matchett holds void-for-vagueness does not apply to advisory Guidelines; Beckles may change that | Denied without prejudice — Matchett forecloses relief now; leave to refile if Supreme Court alters Matchett in Beckles |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (advisory Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges under Johnson)
- In re Hines, 824 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2016) (armed bank robbery may qualify under § 924(c)’s elements clause when record shows force, assault, and weapon use)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (Guidelines serve as the lodestar for sentencing and affect appellate reasonableness review)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson’s rule is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (courts must give retroactive effect to new substantive rules of constitutional law)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held the Guidelines advisory and established reasonableness review)