King v. United States
202 F. Supp. 3d 1346
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Gregory King was convicted in 2007 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the ACCA to 180 months based on three prior predicate convictions identified in the PSI. Neither party objected to the PSI at sentencing.
- The ACCA increases the § 922(g) penalty when a defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses; the statute contains an elements clause, an enumerated clause, and a residual clause later invalidated by Johnson.
- King previously filed a § 2255 motion in 2008 which the court denied; the Eleventh Circuit later authorized King to file a second or successive § 2255 application under § 2255(h) after Welch/Johnson developments.
- King filed a second § 2255 motion arguing that, in light of Johnson (and relying on Descamps and Mathis), an insufficient number of his prior convictions now qualify as ACCA predicates and asking to be re‑sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months.
- The Government initially agreed to vacatur but later withdrew that concession, arguing that Descamps and Mathis do not apply retroactively for purposes of a second or successive § 2255 and that the Court must assess whether, under the law existing at sentencing, King was sentenced based on the residual clause.
- The district court concluded Descamps and Mathis are not retroactive for second or successive § 2255 motions under AEDPA and Eleventh Circuit precedent, dismissed King’s motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and allowed King 14 days to amend if he could show the sentencing record (or law at the time) established reliance on the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Descamps/Mathis may be applied to show King was sentenced under the ACCA residual clause for purposes of a successive § 2255 | King: Descamps/Mathis clarify existing law and should be applied to determine whether his prior convictions qualify under elements/enumerated clauses, so Johnson relief is available | Government: Descamps/Mathis are not new constitutional rules made retroactive by the Supreme Court and thus cannot be used to reopen a second or successive § 2255; the court must apply law as of sentencing to decide if the residual clause was the basis | Held: Descamps and Mathis do not apply retroactively to second or successive § 2255 motions under AEDPA; King failed to show he was sentenced under the residual clause as required for § 2255(h) jurisdiction; motion dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend to allege sentencing‑record reliance on the residual clause |
| Whether the district court may rely on current precedent (Descamps/Mathis) rather than law at sentencing to resolve a Johnson claim in a successive § 2255 | King: Current precedent should be used when the record is ambiguous; ambiguities resolve in defendant’s favor | Government: Court must make an objective assessment based on controlling law at sentencing and the contemporaneous record; current precedents cannot be used to relitigate predicate qualification in successive petitions | Held: Court must apply the law as it existed at sentencing (except Johnson), so current clarifications (Descamps/Mathis) cannot be used as the basis for a successive § 2255 absent Supreme Court retroactivity or showing sentencing reliance on the residual clause |
| Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s authorization to file a successive § 2255 resolves district court jurisdiction to decide the claim | King: Eleventh Circuit granted leave, which indicates a prima facie showing | Government: Circuit authorization is limited and district court must independently determine § 2255(h) requirements de novo | Held: Circuit authorization is a threshold finding; district court must still decide de novo whether statutory requirements are met and here concluded they were not |
| Remedy and procedural posture after finding lack of jurisdiction | King: Requests resentencing to 120 months if ACCA predicates no longer exist | Government: Opposed absent a showing that sentencing relied on residual clause as of 2007 | Held: § 2255 motion dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; King allowed 14 days to amend to allege facts showing the sentencing court relied on the residual clause under contemporaneous law |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes categorical approach for ACCA predicates)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits documents courts may consult to identify the factual basis of a plea)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarifies when the modified categorical approach applies; divisible vs. indivisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (clarifies elements vs. means distinction for the modified categorical approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (invalidates ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (framework for retroactivity of new rules in collateral proceedings)
- In re Hires, 825 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.: Descamps is not retroactive for successive § 2255)
- In re Moore, 830 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir.: district court must decide in first instance whether sentencing relied on residual clause)