203 F.Supp.3d 1167
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Salvatore Leone was convicted in 1996 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) to 327 months’ imprisonment based on multiple prior convictions, including several Florida burglary convictions.
- Johnson v. United States held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Welch made Johnson retroactive on collateral review; Leone filed a second §2255 motion asserting Johnson relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit authorized Leone to file a second/successive §2255 as he made a prima facie Johnson showing given an unclear sentencing record.
- Leone’s §2255 relies on Descamps and Mathis to argue that his prior Florida burglary convictions do not qualify under the ACCA’s elements or enumerated clauses, so any enhancement must have rested on the residual clause invalidated by Johnson.
- The Government initially conceded relief but later withdrew, arguing Descamps/Mathis do not control the §2255(h) gatekeeping inquiry for second or successive motions.
- The district court concluded Descamps and Mathis cannot be applied retroactively to authorize a second or successive §2255 under §2255(h); Leone’s motion was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction but he was given 14 days to amend to allege a pure Johnson claim based on the law/record as of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Descamps/Mathis may be applied retroactively to authorize a second or successive §2255 under §2255(h) | Descamps/Mathis clarify preexisting law (Taylor/Shepard) and thus should be applied to determine whether prior burglary convictions qualified at sentencing | Descamps/Mathis are not a new rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court and cannot be used to satisfy §2255(h) gatekeeping for second/successive motions | Court held Descamps/Mathis do not apply retroactively for §2255(h); they cannot be used to establish jurisdiction for Leone’s second §2255 |
| Whether Leone’s sentence was imposed under the ACCA residual clause (triggering Johnson) | Leone contends that because his burglaries would not count under Descamps/Mathis, it is unclear whether the ACCA enhancement rested on the residual clause | The Government argues the §2255(h) inquiry must look to law/record at sentencing, not to Descamps/Mathis; therefore Leone has not shown he was sentenced under the residual clause | Court held Leone failed to show he was sentenced under the residual clause as pleaded and so cannot proceed under §2255(h) |
| Whether the district court may rely on the Parties’ stipulation (and prior R&R) after the Government withdrew its concession | Leone relies on the stipulation and initial R&R recommending relief | Government withdrew concession; court must independently determine §2255(h) jurisdiction and apply controlling Eleventh Circuit law | Court rejected the Report and Recommendation as moot and conducted independent analysis; dismissal followed |
| Remedy and leave to amend | Leone seeks amended judgment reducing sentence to 120 months and immediate release | Government opposes absent jurisdictional showing; court allows limited amendment opportunity | Court dismissed without prejudice but gave Leone 14 days to file an amended §2255 asserting a pure Johnson claim based on record/law at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2275 (2013) (modified categorical approach limited to divisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishing elements from means; limiting modified categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (formal categorical approach for ACCA predicates)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (Shepard documents for applying modified categorical approach)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (Descamps/Mathis are clarifications but AEDPA gatekeeping limits use on successive §2255)