Jeffrey Russo v. United States, 902 F.3d 880

Jeffrey Russo pleaded guilty in 2004 to drug and firearm offenses and was sentenced as a career offender under the then-mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, yielding a guideline range of 646–711 months; the court imposed 646 months then reduced to 235 months for unrelated reasons.
Russo filed a § 2255 motion within one year after Johnson v. United States, arguing the career-offender designation relied on the Guidelines’ residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), which he contended was unconstitutionally vague like the ACCA residual clause struck in Johnson.
The district court dismissed Russo’s § 2255 motion as untimely, holding Johnson did not recognize the particular right Russo asserted and therefore § 2255(f)(3)’s one-year restart did not apply.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Johnson “newly recognized” the asserted right for purposes of § 2255(f)(3), applying the Teague framework for new rules and retroactivity.
The court concluded Johnson did not dictate the right Russo asserts because reasonable jurists could debate whether Johnson’s ACCA vagueness holding extends to the former mandatory Guidelines; therefore Russo’s motion was untimely and dismissal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson restarted § 2255(f)(3) limitations for a vagueness challenge to the residual clause in the mandatory Guidelines	Russo: Johnson’s invalidation of ACCA residual clause newly recognized a due-process right to be sentenced without reference to a similar residual clause in mandatory Guidelines	Government: Johnson did not recognize that right; applying it to mandatory Guidelines would create a new rule beyond Johnson	Held: Johnson did not newly recognize Russo’s asserted right; § 2255(f)(3) does not apply and the motion is untimely

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held vagueness challenge inapplicable to the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Guidelines advisory after Booker remedial opinion)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for determining whether a rule is "new" for habeas retroactivity)
United States v. Wivell, 893 F.2d 156 (8th Cir. 1990) (held limitations the Guidelines place on judicial discretion do not alone render them unconstitutionally vague)
In re Griffin, 823 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2016) (post-Johnson decision rejecting vagueness challenge to mandatory Guidelines residual clause)